Electricity Supplies: Interruption

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have advised electricity distribution companies in the United Kingdom of ways to reduce the risk of supplies to rural areas being interrupted as a result of severe weather.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the responsibility for minimising the risk of interruption of supplies lies with the relevant distribution network operator. At the beginning of this year, my honourable friend the Minister for Energy commissioned British Power International to study whether the distribution companies had adequate arrangements in place to deal with the loss of electricity to consumers at times of emergency. Individual areas for improvement were identified and passed back to the companies for action. The BPI report was published on 18th June 2002.
	Following the storms in late October, a further study has been commissioned to establish how well the companies' networks were able to withstand the storms, how well the companies performed in the aftermath of the storms and the lessons to be learned for the future.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, and I am glad to hear that the Government are at least taking an interest in what is a serious problem. Does he recognise that one of the main reasons for the interruption of electricity supplies in rural areas is the fact that trees and branches fall on to wires? They are mainly low-voltage wires, which could easily, economically and cost-effectively be put underground. May I remind him—because I am sure that he does not remember—that when I was on the board of Eastern Electricity, I got the company to introduce a scheme in East Anglia? It put wires underground in 30 communities and there were no problems in those areas, although there were many storms. Will he encourage electricity distribution companies to face up to their simple responsibilities in this matter?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these are exactly the issues that the study will consider. The whole question of branches being properly trimmed on a regular basis is part of essential maintenance. Other steps could be taken, such as providing covered conductors. Wires could also be put underground, although that would involve considerable expense.

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, will the study to which my noble friend referred have regard to the expertise gathered in the north of Scotland following the electrification of the whole of that area, which was a considerable engineering achievement? Will it have regard to the expertise built up by what was then the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board for dealing with adverse weather conditions? That expertise would be valuable to any study undertaken on the matter.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall make certain that that expertise is fed in when we consider the results of the study.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in north Northumberland, it is not only as a result of bad weather that the electricity supply is cut off? In the Belford area, local residents have put together an extremely good report. Their supplier is Northern Electric and they have been asking for support from the Government to back up their findings. They want the modernisation programme to be brought forward and implemented along the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I should be grateful for any help that the Minister can give people in that area. The position is detrimental to people's wellbeing and to businesses in particular.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are obviously processes for complaining when interruptions occur, through bodies such as Energywatch; Ofgem also has the responsibility of making certain. I should imagine that that is the first body to which such reports should be sent. Equally, if the noble Baroness would like to send the report to the department, we should ensure that it was considered.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in my village of Crondall, low voltage power interruptions are quite frequent? There has been some investigation of that and it has been found that it is normally caused by foxes. Those poor foxes—

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, when the thing shorts, the fox is killed as a result. Does my noble friend believe that that is a reasonable way to get rid of foxes in Hampshire, and might that approach apply in Suffolk and other parts of the country?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science and Innovation, it is probably better to stay away from the issue of foxes and to concentrate on rather easier subjects.

Lord Renton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that placing electricity cables underground not only saves the appearance of the countryside but saves public expense?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not know the exact comparison of costs between placing cables underground and placing them overground. I should imagine that it is much more expensive to put them overground in most circumstances. However, in most cases cables are overground and it would involve considerable expense to put them underground. I shall look at the figures to make an exact comparison.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether the studies to which he referred will include the development of new technologies such as micro-CHB and micropower, in which I declare an interest? These are ways in which, within the next year or so, users will be able to generate their own electricity in their own homes and therefore, in rural areas in particular, will be totally independent of what happens outside.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the study I am talking about is a very short one to look specifically at how the distribution companies operated in these particular circumstances. It will not be considering major issues such as new technology but the rather more simple issues of good housekeeping, information systems and how they performed, and what we can do to get it better next time.

Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in the House recently we have been considering major emergencies of a different kind. Is the Minister aware that in the early 1980s, during a large-scale blizzard in South Wales which closed down the electricity supply and most other public services, we learnt very quickly that you cannot carry through the normal arrangements for managing a national emergency if you have no electric power? Therefore this is not only a matter of household convenience but has much wider implications.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is no doubt that that is the case. That is why this is such an important subject. As is shown by the two reports, it is one to which we are giving very serious attention.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, while appreciating the significant questions posed by Members of the Opposition, can my noble friend advise the House of the extent to which they were able to deal with these questions during their 18 years in power?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot do that. All I can say is that the first of the studies, which was carried out earlier this year, looked at whether the companies were less able to deal with emergencies because of reduced manpower. The study found that this was not the case. The companies are as well placed now as previously to deal with emergencies. The position after the storm in 1987 was much worse—probably because the storm was much worse—and it took three weeks to restore supplies to everyone. It is not a question of the service getting worse; if anything it is getting better.

Household Debt

Lord Roberts of Conwy: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are concerned about the current level of household debt, and whether they propose to take any action.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government continue to fully back the judgment of the Monetary Policy Committee in delivering macro-economic stability. The MPC is alert to the risks associated with further expansion of household debt, as it made clear in its November inflation report. However, households' total interest payments are now only 7.3 per cent of their disposable income compared with a peak of 15.1 per cent in 1990 and an average of 9.3 per cent over the period 1979–97.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. He will know that total household debt now stands at a near record £810 billion and that it increased by nearly £10 billion in October of this year alone. Is it not clear that there must be a sharp correction, which will be painful for property buyers, for consumers and, indeed, for the economy as a whole? Does the noble Lord have any advice for these borrowers of a seasonal nature?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course there is a risk of a sharp correction. In its November inflation report the Bank of England specifically made that point and we agree with it. Clearly people should not borrow above the level for which their total household income will provide. The crucial factor for most families is how much it costs them to service that debt. Household wealth is more than five times greater than household debt and it would be difficult to persuade people that they should be concerned with the gross amount of debt rather than what it costs them.

Lord Vinson: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the land value of a house in 1952 was approximately 15 per cent and that today it is more than 50 per cent? If we really want to solve the problem of household debt and high levels of borrowing, more land has to be released. That is the basic cause of the problem.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, whatever the cause may be, whether it is the availability of land or any other cause, the level of housing starts—and I have figures only for the past 10 years—is grossly inadequate to meet not so much the rise in population but the rise in household formation. Clearly if that situation is to be improved, more sites have to be found. That is why the Government are concentrating so heavily on finding more brownfield sites.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many people with absolute levels of debt will find the Answer complacent in that they are extremely vulnerable to either increases in interest rates or unemployment? Will he go back to his colleagues in the Treasury and suggest that they, the FSA and the Bank of England should consider taking concerted action to warn people about the dangers of accumulating high levels of debt? Many of the ways in which these warnings are currently issued—for example, in the inflation report—simply do not filter down to ordinary people.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that we are complacent and I certainly do not think that the Monetary Policy Committee is complacent. This is clearly one of the important issues that it takes into account. I shall not attempt to guess what conclusion the committee will reach this week. If the noble Lord is concerned with the individual pain of high levels of debt, I hope that he is slightly reassured to think that repossession levels are at an historic low and are falling. They are only a quarter of the level that they were at their peak in 1991.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, how would the Minister describe a household which, like the Government, has five times more money going out every month than it has coming in?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is not what I said. I said that household wealth was over five times the household debt. That is not the same as income.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, within households, particular problems arise with young people? Is not the way in which debt is made available to young people a particular problem within the overall scope of debt management?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, of course that is right. The availability of credit to those who are not in circumstances to service it has been a matter of concern over many years. Again, I am not seeking to be complacent; I am merely looking to put both sides of the argument. There is an increase in the use, for example, of credit cards, including by young people. But a very large proportion of that is in the form of debit cards, which are, of course, paid off immediately.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, will my noble friend give an assurance that he will not support what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, implied; namely, that the Government will not ask the Monetary Policy Committee to increase interest rates in order to do anything about it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not give any advice to the Monetary Policy Committee. We took the decision in May 1997 to devolve these matters to the committee. If I were under any circumstances to give advice, I should not give it on the basis of not being able to make a distinction between wealth and income.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, is not the high level of spending and borrowing due in part to a general lack of confidence in the future? People are faced with the prospects of germ warfare and alarmist reports in the newspaper. Is it not normal when people are insecure for them often to go shopping or to turn to the bottle?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Retail therapy, my Lords! You could argue the contrary. You could argue that people's willingness to borrow comes from a certain amount of confidence in the future. After all, we have historically high levels of employment and historically low levels of unemployment. We have historically low interest rates and historically low inflation. There is a great deal more security among the population than there was in the 1980s and 1990s.

Central London: Congestion Charging

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to deal with emergencies arising from a breakdown of the central London congestion charging scheme.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the decision to set up the scheme was entirely the mayor's. Similarly, it is the mayor's responsibility to deal with any problems that arise. The mayor has gone on record as saying that the scheme could be switched off if it does not work.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, will the Minister tell us honestly whether he thinks the scheme will work? Is not the trouble at present that it seems to be mind-blowingly complex? Have not the rules for those living in central London to claim exemption and discounts been unflatteringly compared to the self-assessment tax papers? Will it not be dangerously easy for a visitor to London to stray unwittingly into the central London area without knowing it, and to find at the end of the day that he has an £80 fine to pay?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am certainly not going to express a view on whether or not the scheme will work. That would put me in the worst of all possible positions, would it not? The mayor would get the credit if it did work, and we should get the blame if it did not. We are not going to have that.
	The Secretary of State has made it clear that any congestion charging scheme (I refer not only to London) has to be workable technically—I hear what the noble Lord says about the complexity for residents of inner London; it must be supported by adequate public transport alternatives—the mayor has given us assurances on that point; and it must have broad public acceptance.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister is responsible for the emergency services in London, and my noble friend's Question refers to emergencies. If the scheme means that emergency services will not be able get through the centre of London, will the Government look at the matter again? What is more, if the introduction of the scheme means that the centre of London becomes empty but the surrounding boroughs become totally congested, that will be the Government's responsibility. Will they then repeal the legislation that they brought in allowing congestion charging to happen in the first place?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are a lot of extreme suppositions there. There are full exemptions from the congestion charge for fire, police and ambulance services. Therefore, there is no extra cost to the emergency services. They will clearly have free access to central London. According to the objectives of the scheme as I understand them, it is hoped that there will be less traffic in central London. Presumably, their response times will therefore be faster. As to the effects on congestion in outer London, these are exactly the things that will have to be seen when the scheme comes into force.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, will the Minister continue to resist calls for central government to interfere in matters which are properly, as he has said, those for devolved government? If he agrees, will he make the same point to his colleague, the Secretary of State for Transport, who appears to have the new idea of a so-called "holes tsar" to deal with holes in the road? These are admittedly a major issue, but would it not be better for the powers to be given to the devolved government to deal with the matter, and so contribute to the reduction in congestion?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that I have always resisted invitations to intervene in the responsibilities of the mayor and the Greater London Assembly. I do not think that the Secretary of State has talked about a "holes tsar", even if he used the word "tsar". What he has been talking about is the idea, particularly outside London, of having traffic managers who would take responsibility for all aspects of roads. The noble Baroness cannot deny that there is divided responsibility between the mayor and the Greater London government and the 32 boroughs in London. That has sometimes caused problems. It would be better, as the Secretary of State says, if these matters were under one central control.

Lord Imbert: My Lords, is the Minister aware that for a disabled person to apply for exemption from the congestion charge he or she has to supply an original birth certificate or marriage certificate and a copy of both sides of his or her blue or orange badge and pay a £10 administration charge—to relieve the disabled person of paying a £5 congestion charge?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I was not aware of that. This is, of course, the responsibility of the mayor. I will communicate the noble Lord's views to him.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree on reflection that it is simply no good for him or the Government to continue to try to distance themselves from the Mayor of London and the damage that he is likely to cause? If that damage is only slight, maybe they can get away with it. But if the consequences are muddle and expensive chaos, they can be very sure that they will be deeply involved in answering for it.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a political judgment, which he is entirely entitled to make. But I am concerned that we should reflect the law as we have it in this country which was passed by Parliament. We passed an Act of devolution of power in London to the mayor and the Greater London Assembly. That was agreed by all parties at the time to be the right thing to do. You do not then—when there are worries about the mayor's particular policies or even about a number of issues—go on to demand the repeal of legislation.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, did I hear correctly that adequate means of public transport must be provided? Is that what the mayor said? How can residents of Battersea find adequate public transport when there is no Tube and, to get from Battersea to Parliament Square, for instance, one must take a series of buses?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State said it, not the mayor. He said that any congestion charging scheme must be supported by public transport alternatives. We are assured by the mayor, in particular, that the bus service has provision for increased capacity to meet the expected extra demand.

Baroness Hooper: My Lords, can the Minister shed any light on the suggestion that the extended period for red traffic lights in central London is likely to be dramatically reduced upon the introduction of congestion charges in order to suggest that congestion charging is responsible for the easier flow of traffic that will result?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can report only what we are told by Transport for London, which reports to the mayor. It says that there are two aspects of traffic light phasing, which is entirely the mayor's responsibility in central London. One has been that, until the works in Trafalgar Square are complete next summer, there has been phasing to choke off a certain amount of traffic to the square. The other, which is undoubtedly true, is that London was one of the few places that did not observe the phasing for pedestrians to cross roads, which followed the Department of Transport's guidelines set out in 1981. Transport for London is now observing those guidelines.

Prison Population

Lord Hurd of Westwell: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are taking to deal with the results of overcrowding in H M prisons.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government are providing additional prison capacity. They have announced that £60 million will be made available to provide 740 additional prison places by March 2004. We have recently approved Prison Service plans for two new prisons. Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General said in their recent statement, dangerous, violent and sexual offenders should be given custodial sentences for as long as punishment and public protection require. In addition, seriously persistent offenders who continue to offend, despite being given every reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation, should normally expect to receive a custodial sentence. For less serious offenders, consideration should be given to effective, non-custodial sentences. The government reform of the criminal justice system introduced tough new community sentences that can provide robust and effective alternatives to custody.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and acknowledge my involvement with the Prison Reform Trust. It is remarkable and perhaps sad that when the Minister introduced the Government's penal policy in the debate on the Address he did not spare a word for the grossly overcrowded state of our prisons. How many prisoners today are eating, sleeping and going to the lavatory while sharing with another prisoner a small cell designed for one?
	Can the Minister assess the effect on programmes for education, training and family visits of the churn; that is to say, the present habit of shunting sentenced prisoners up and down the country repeatedly to try to solve the problem of overcrowding? If this continues, will not our prisons, a crucial but often forgotten public service, become, not part of the cure for crime, but nurseries for future crime?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in response to the first question, in October 2002, approximately 15,000 prisoners were held with another prisoner in cells designed for one. The key performance indicator in that respect was that only 18 per cent of the prison population should be held in such cells. The figure is about 21 per cent.
	As regards the churn, where figures are available, 6,358 of a total prison population of about 72,500 were transferred between prisons in October 2002. Pressure on accommodation will inconvenience prisoners and disrupt programmes, but the Prison Service seeks to avoid this as much as possible and encourages establishments to place the necessary holds on prisoners studying for basic skills qualifications. The number has increased from 5,771 in October 2001. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord for giving notice of his supplementary questions.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that one result of overcrowding is undoubtedly the serious dilution of an already thin provision of education? To take just one example, with the numbers in Forest Bank prison in Greater Manchester, which has a very good education and training record, having risen rapidly from around 700 to nearly 1,000, it can provide education for fewer than half of its inmates.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the effect of current numbers in prisons inevitably dilutes the ability of the Prison Service to provide basic education and skills, which make a real contribution to stopping reoffending and must be one of its vital aims. That is partly because of the transfers, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, and because there are more prisoners. All prisons are required to provide a core curriculum, which includes basic skills, information technology and preparation for work, all of which lead to nationally recognised awards and qualifications. The more people there are in prison, the harder it is to provide that.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the director of the Prison Reform Trust, in an article nine days ago in the Observer, underlined the Lord Chief Justice's comment that we now imprison almost double the irreducible minimum to which the Lord Chief Justice referred. To respond simply by having an increased prison building programme has all the disadvantages and attractions of widening the M25. Will the Minister consider convening as a matter of urgency the widest gathering of interested parties to give top priority to reducing prison numbers so that the Prison Service can do the job for which it is intended and not be diverted by this enormous and irrational pressure to lock up more and more people?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Lord Chief Justice, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General made clear that, apart from the categories of case that I mentioned in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, consideration should be given to alternatives to custody—for example, curfews, strong community sentences or fines—so that reoffending can be effectively reduced. Separately, we also need to consider how, when people are released from prison, steps can be taken to help them to reintegrate in society to ensure that they do not reoffend.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are now 20 per cent more women in prison than there were last year and that the number now is approximately 4,000—twice as many as when Labour came to power in 1997? How have we created this anomaly in the criminal justice process whereby we incarcerate proportionately more women than men? Why are community sentences not used as often in the case of women, who commit less serious crimes than men?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we do not incarcerate more women than men. The number of women incarcerated has gone up as a proportion, although that is now flattening out. It is difficult to identify the main reason from the figures, but one of the largest categories of offence for which women have been incarcerated where that has not been so in the past is drug-related offences. That appears to be one factor that has driven up the female population in prison.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that the only answer to overcrowding in prisons is to reduce, where proper and acceptable, the number of people sent to prison? Does he accept that, where appropriate, non-violent offenders should in general receive non-custodial sentences; that such sentences cost 10 per cent of the cost of custodial sentences; and that the chances of people committing further offences while they are on non-custodial sentences are no greater than when they are locked up in overcrowded prisons? If he agrees, what is he doing to encourage and push the courts into awarding non-custodial sentences whenever appropriate?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I said, for dangerous, violent and sexual offenders and seriously persistent offenders, custody appears appropriate. In other cases, consideration should be given to non-custodial sentences. That point has been made in the joint statement by my noble and learned friend and my right honourable friend in another place. That is what we are doing to try to support the point made by my noble friend.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the recent report—

Lord Grocott: My Lords, we are well into the 35th minute. I think it is time we moved on to the next Question.

Education Spending

Baroness Blatch: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How the £45 billion additional expenditure for education by 2006 announced in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report on 27th November breaks down between early years, primary, secondary, further and higher education.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Chancellor confirmed last week that by 2006 UK education spending will have increased by £15 billion compared with the current year. We will be announcing before Christmas more details of how the additional £12.8 billion for education and skills in England will be allocated. Over £4 billion will be for local authorities, which will take decisions on allocations between primary and secondary schools. Further education will be allocated an additional £1.2 billion.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the Minister listen to the Chancellor's own words last week? He said:
	"So I can not only confirm that we will fund our planned investments: by 2006, there will be £8 billion more a year for local authorities; £15 billion more a year for education; £63 billion more a year for public services".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/11/02; col. 326.]
	Those were extremely misleading words. It is not £15 billion more a year; it is £15 billion more over three years. I call that deceit and I think the House deserves an apology.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I, too, have the words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor in front of me. I shall read them back to the noble Baroness:
	"So I can not only confirm that we will fund our planned investments: by 2006, . . . £15 billion more a year for education".
	The figures before us mean that we will be spending £53.7 billion, followed by £58.6 billion, £62.9 billion and £68.4 billion. By 2006, funding will be up, from this year to then, by £15 billion. I believe my right honourable friend was perfectly clear.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I had hoped at this moment to be able to thank the noble Baroness for following the normal courtesies and civilities of your Lordships' House by apologising to my noble friend Lady Blatch for creating a totally misleading impression during consideration of the Chancellor's speech in this House. As she has decided not to do that, will she consider that the Government's repeated use of misleading statistics to flatter their achievements and to understate their failures and the various errors of omission and commission that appear in the Chancellor's statements lead to only one result: an ever-diminishing trust in government?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I do not believe that I owe the noble Baroness an apology. If I did, I would have apologised. There should be no doubt in your Lordships' House about that. I am saying that we are perfectly clear. We contacted the noble Baroness before this Question was raised this afternoon to explain precisely what was meant. I believe that I have spelt out in my Answer precisely what was being said. My right honourable friend the Chancellor said that by 2006 we will have increased education spending by £15 billion from the figure for the current year.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, on this occasion, from these Benches we agree with the Minister's interpretation of the statistics. There are many occasions on which we have had spin on the statistics, but on this occasion I do not think we have. However, I have a question for the Minister. A great deal of the extra money that was going into the education budget is to go directly to schools through the Standards Fund. Since this Government have come to power, a great deal of money has gone not through local education authorities, but through the Standards Fund. What proportion of the budget will be going through local authorities and how has the proportion changed since 1997?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness those details at this stage, but I shall of course make a Statement in your Lordships' House before Christmas announcing the precise details. I reiterate that of the £12.8 billion, £4.3 billion was announced for local authority education standard spending assessments. Noble Lords will be aware that the SSA settlement will be announced in another place on Thursday this week by Nick Raynsford.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend remind the House of the extra provision for spending in further education—I declare an interest as a patron of a sixth-form college in Birmingham—given the excellent job that they do in providing education and training for those who have perhaps not got all that they should have done out of their secondary education?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Yes, my Lords. As I have already said, we have allocated a further £1.2 billion for further education, which I am sure is welcomed on all sides of your Lordships' House.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if one asked the Plain English Campaign what these words meant—that by 2006 £15 billion more a year would be spent—it would expect £15 billion more each year until 2006 to be spent. That is deceitful.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I have read out what my right honourable friend the Chancellor said. I reiterate that we are perfectly clear about the fact that by 2006 there will be £15 billion more a year for education. That represents increases in each year of £5 billion, £9 billion and £15 billion to get us to that point. I am sorry if the noble Baroness misinterpreted what my right honourable friend said. I hope that I have clarified for your Lordships' House precisely what the figures are.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, there will be two Statements to be repeated this afternoon at a suitable time after 3.30 p.m.—the first by my noble friend Lord Whitty on hunting with dogs and the second by my noble friend Lady Ashton on the Tomlinson inquiry.

Public Services (Disruption) Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision to contain disruption of public services by collective industrial action and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Although apparently modest in itself, the Bill will set up and enhance the frameworks to help the UK to address two key environmental challenges—climate change and sustainable waste management. There is a strong link between the two challenges. Less reliance on landfill will help reduce the production of greenhouse gases as well as helping us achieve our goal of putting a sustainable waste management system in place. These challenges are the subject of two important international commitments: the Kyoto Protocol and the landfill directive. The provisions in the Bill will help the UK to deliver on both these commitments.
	This modest Bill—only 35 clauses—tackles these two challenges through similar economic instruments. It will stimulate reductions in the emission of pollutants and make us less reliant on landfill in the most economically efficient way. It will support the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading system with statutory penalties. It will also set up a landfill allowance scheme, which is probably the first scheme of its type in Europe, possibly the world, to address waste.
	The Bill uses trading to meet environmental goals, as trading is a flexible and cost-effective economic instrument that allows reductions, whether in landfill or emissions, to be made where it is cheapest to do so. Target holders in a trading scheme may do one of three things. First, they can take in-house action to reduce to their target levels. Secondly, they may reduce below their target and sell or bank the "surplus". Thirdly, they may let levels remain above their targets and themselves buy allowances from other participants. But because total levels are constrained to the sum of the individual targets, an overall environment-led benefit is achieved.
	Your Lordships will be aware of the threat to the global environment caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. The role of landfill in adding to these emissions may, however, seem less clear.
	Landfilling biodegradable waste produces methane, a greenhouse gas some 21 times more powerful than carbon dioxide and 25 per cent of UK emissions of methane come from landfill sites.
	The UK currently landfills nearly 80 per cent of its municipal waste, which is a lot higher than most other countries in Europe. As well as the implications for climate change it means we gain no additional value at all from the resources contained in the waste. Many of these resources could be reused or recycled or have energy extracted from them.
	It is the goal of the UK Government to move to a more sustainable waste management system. A key for sustainable waste management is the waste hierarchy. That gives a framework for how waste should be managed: the higher up the hierarchy the more sustainable the management of waste. The hierarchy starts with reducing and minimising waste; then reusing what would otherwise be waste; then recycling; then recovery through composting and energy recovery. At the bottom comes disposal.
	Each of the UK administrations have strategies to manage waste through the hierarchy, which derives from the Waste Framework Directive. The Strategy Unit of No 10 has just reported on delivery of the strategy in England and has recommendations on how to move management of waste further up the hierarchy.
	This Bill is only part of the wider strategy. It is looking at the over-dependence on landfill at the bottom of the hierarchy, and the environmental problems of the production of methane in landfill.
	To tackle this problem the European Union agreed in 1999 to the Landfill Directive. This directive includes stringent targets to cut the amount of biodegradable municipal waste which is sent to landfill.
	Within the UK these are devolved matters to all administrations, with the Scottish Parliament having legislative competence. For Northern Ireland this Bill will support the legislative base should the outcome of consultation support landfill allowances there. The administrations have agreed to act together, and have agreed that this Bill be considered in total by this Parliament. This will increase the effectiveness of the measures by widening the area for potential trading.
	The obligations on the UK, even allowing for a four-year derogation require a 25 per cent cut in landfill of this waste from that produced in 1995 by 2010; 50 per cent by 2013 and 65 per cent by 2020. This is a very significant challenge for this country. Indeed, the challenge has become more difficult year on year. Municipal waste is currently growing at 3 per cent to 4 per cent a year with recycling growing at only 1 per cent. So we are landfilling at the moment more biodegradable municipal waste than ever and getting further away from our targets.
	Biodegradable waste represents about 63 per cent of the municipal waste stream. It is that waste which may undergo anaerobic or aerobic decomposition. In other words, that means it either rots in air or without air. This type of waste includes paper, cardboard, food and garden waste and natural textiles. All these wastes can be recycled or recovered in some way.
	We recognise the scale of the challenge and the large investment in alternatives to landfill which will be required. These reductions are obligations on all who use landfill and who produce waste. However, as the Landfill Directive targets apply to municipal waste we have to look to local authorities to deliver compliance with those targets.
	Local authorities have been consulted in England and Wales on how to meet the challenge and consultation is continuing in Northern Ireland. The Government proposed allowances as an imaginative approach which should prove flexible and effective as well as giving certainty to local authorities about their obligations. There was general agreement in Great Britain on this approach.
	Those noble Lords who follow these issues will know that when we consulted on this approach, it was called a permit system. We have changed the terminology to use the term "allowances" for legal clarity as landfills will already have pollution control permits as a result of other parts of the Landfill Directive.
	Part 1 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to specify the maximum amounts of biodegradable waste which can be sent to landfill in each of the four countries of the United Kingdom. Naturally, she must consult the devolved administrations. That target setting must be carried out for each of the Landfill Directive target years. For the interim non-target years the Secretary of State may set limits with the countries' agreement, or there is a default formula to set them. That is intended to provide an even profile of reduction to meet the targets over that period.
	After this initial division, responsibility for setting up an allowance scheme rests with each devolved administration in the UK and the UK Government for England. This reflects the fact that environment policy is devolved.
	Scheme details will be set out in regulations: each devolved administration will be able to produce its own scheme and decide on the allocation of allowances in its area. It will also have to decide whether to permit trading in its area. Those countries who do decide to take advantage will become part of a cross-border trading scheme.
	There is an absolute duty on each waste disposal authority not to exceed the allowances which they hold, whether by initial allocation or as a result of a trade. However, no local authority will be obliged to trade: it may simply stay with its allotted allocation. Equally, the Bill gives flexibility for trading to be for no monetary value—simply a question of transfer by arrangement between the authorities.
	However, we are not giving third parties the right to hold or trade landfill allowances. There are a number of reasons for this: first, we want opportunities for local authorities to trade surplus: secondly, because the targets will be difficult for the UK, so we do not want any possibility of allowances being "retired" out of the system. Neither do we want waste companies to purchase allowances and use them themselves; for example, for direct procurement. It is therefore confined to local authorities.
	Details of each scheme are for the United Kingdom and my department in England and the devolved administrations. The Bill gives sufficient flexibility to allow for a variety of models. But each local authority will receive allowances which will represent maximum amounts that can be landfilled in each year. The intention is to allocate allowances for every year up to and including the final target year of 2020. Local authorities can then plan their progressive diversion from landfill over that period. However, the Bill recognises that over a period of 16 years the situation can change so there is a provision to revise the allocations should this prove necessary.
	The schemes will be monitored by monitoring authorities appointed for each country in the United Kingdom. They will record each transfer on a central register and the trade will not have taken place until the record is made. Using the regulators has the additional benefit of least burden and cost as they are already responsible—or in the case of Northern Ireland soon will be—for regulating landfills and collect information from landfill operators and local authorities, so there is no duplication.
	If a waste disposal authority landfills more biodegradable municipal waste than it holds allowances for, there will also be civil financial penalties. These penalties will be set out in regulations. They will need to be set at a sufficient level to ensure that the local authority has the incentive to divert from landfill or buy allowances rather than breach the limits. This is essential to secure the Landfill Directive targets and to underpin an effective trading scheme.
	However, the aim is not to take resources out of local authorities but rather to encourage them to meet the targets in a sensible and co-ordinated way. That is why the Bill also allows the allocating authorities to suspend and/or cancel penalties if necessary.
	The importance of the directive target years is again acknowledged in the power for a supplementary penalty if a waste disposal authority breaches limits in a directive year. This is a proper reflection of the legal obligation in the directive on the UK and is backed up by penalties from the EU, which could amount to £180 million a year.
	Part 1 of the Bill also implements Article 5(1) of the directive by requiring each country to produce a strategy to reduce the amount of all biodegradable waste which is sent to landfill. As your Lordships will be aware, these strategies have, in the main, already been produced.
	Chapter 2 relates solely to Wales. This gives to the National Assembly for Wales the power to require the Welsh local authorities to prepare municipal waste management strategies. The Assembly may also require information about municipal waste. That derives from the waste strategy for Wales, Wise about Waste, which made it clear that the Welsh Assembly Government intended to require local authorities to have those strategies. It will enable them to make sensible provision and it will enable the devolved administration to meet international commitments. The Assembly has worked closely with local authorities in Wales over the provisions.
	I turn to Part 2, which deals with emissions trading and is part of a far wider commitment to implement a wide-ranging and innovative climate change programme to deliver both Kyoto and domestic greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are proud that the UK has the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. There is voluntary participation by companies, which will deliver absolute emissions reductions to the benefit of the UK, and, more importantly, to the globe as a whole. It will also give UK business, Government and the City of London a head start in the practical operation of such schemes and prepare them for the introduction of wider trading schemes at EU and international level—potentially a billion dollar market.
	There are four types of participant in this scheme. First, and most directly affected by the Bill, direct participants; those companies that have taken on an absolute five-year emission reduction target from sources within the scheme in return for a financial incentive. These are represented by 34 organisations spanning a range of sizes and sectors, including public sector bodies. Certain exclusions apply, the main one being power generators. Within the scheme, the controlled emissions are the responsibility of the end-user, rather than the generator.
	The second target-holding type is climate change agreement participants. These agreements between Government and sector associations and operators in 44 energy intensive sectors set energy or emissions targets. Meeting the target allows an 80 per cent discount from the climate change levy. Climate change agreement holders, both sector associations and operators, can use the scheme to buy allowances to help meet their target or, if they over-achieve, to sell the surplus.
	Thirdly, there are trading participants, which do not hold targets, but simply buy and sell targets in the allowance market. We are also working on a fourth entry route to allow approved UK based emissions reduction projects—as distinct from companies—to generate credits valid against targets in the scheme. A pilot phase is due to be launched early next year.
	It is essential for the scheme and the emerging allowance market to be underpinned by a robust compliance regime; it is a voluntary scheme that needs to be underlined by penalties. It must always be more attractive to turn to the market and buy allowances than to face the penalty for non-compliance. The Bill will then deliver on the promise made explicit in the contracts and other scheme documentation when we set up the scheme to provide for statutory penalties for direct participants who fail to meet their annual emissions targets. This will be welcomed by all participants in the scheme. It is in their interest to underpin and stimulate the market. The Bill does not change compliance consequences for climate change agreement participants, which would lose their levy discount for failing to meet their targets.
	We have learnt the lesson from the introduction of the UK emissions trading scheme about the need for a market to have a robust compliance base. Therefore, we are taking this opportunity to prepare for future emissions trading schemes. Hence Clause 31 gives us the power to provide for penalties in future schemes. It does not specify that such potential schemes may cover other pollutants regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 and regulations, such as the acid rain gases sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides.
	So the Bill tackles some of the biggest environmental challenges we face, both as a nation and internationally. It does this through innovative instruments which will share burdens more effectively. It uses market based tools, which should deliver more economically optimal solutions. We are meeting future challenges through future means. I commend the Bill to the House.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, on reading the Bill for the first time my dominant emotion was disappointment. I had anticipated something that would put waste management centre stage. I had envisaged that the Government would take the initiative and produce a document with which there would be little disagreement.
	But where is the hierarchy of this waste treatment? Where are the measures to reduce waste production in the first place, then to encourage the re-use and recycling and composting of such waste? Where is the pressure to recover energy from waste? Alas, my Lords, apart from the penalties related to emissions trading, the Bill is predominantly about landfill.
	More than that, sadly, it is aimed at biodegradable waste going into landfill, which forms only 6 per cent of our total waste produce. Does inert material in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland not matter? Am I wrong in believing that the use of plastics is increasing, particularly in excessive wrapping and packaging? The Bill refers to weight and not to things of lighter weight.
	I know, for example, that a lot of work is going on with the re-using of worn out car tyres, but they are still going to landfill. They are hardly considered biodegradable. The Bill has nothing to say about the fridge mountains, nor the looming problem of disposal of old cars. Should there not be a rule or two about the rubble produced when brownfield sites are re-used?
	I referred to three countries where clearly waste disposal is a devolved responsibility. Why then can the Government tell Scotland, in particular, to consult? Why does the section on waste management in Wales go into such fine detail about what the Assembly may include in its regulations? I note that there is no parallel provision for England.
	My right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke introduced the landfill tax. It was the first ever hypothecated tax and its proceeds—or some of them—were intended to benefit the environment. Many a rural community has been reconciled to huge waste pits down the road by flows of funds to help improve the village and surrounding countryside. I wonder whether the Bill will gladden anyone's heart. Will the stringent targets—those that are known, because the figures are still not known to us—result in enthusiastic reduction, re-use or recycling?
	Do the Government envisage giving priority to the treating of planning applications that will be needed to help promote recycling? Without priority planning permission being given, some of the Bill's aims may fall short. For example, I was told recently that one company had applied for a bottle recycling plant but was turned down by the local council.
	Perhaps we are intended to read between the lines and realise that the threat of EU penalties will ensure that the Government act, fund new research into new ways of producing energy from waste and remove the obstacles to recycling. For instance, millions of eggshells from packaging stations, from dried egg producers, cake makers and other food producers currently go into landfill. They could be used as an ingredient for compost and for reclaiming land, but the current animal products legislation does not allow this. Will the Government address that issue?
	The landfill tax may have resulted in some environmental benefits. It does not, however, appear to have been effective in reducing the quantities of waste going into landfill, which the Minister acknowledged in his opening speech, even if some has been temporarily diverted into lay-by, gateway, lane or coppice. The thirteenth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee quoted evidence to show that landfill tax started too low and has increased too slowly to be an effective deterrent. Again, I would be grateful for the Minister's observations on that point. There was also evidence that the tax has not provided business with adequate incentives to reduce, reuse or recycle waste.
	In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor indicated that, from April 2005, the escalator will be set at £3 per tonne per year rather than the current £1 per year. Should there not be a cross-benefit whereby firms are credited for reusing and recycling materials which would in other circumstances have been waste?
	Big firms can make their own arrangements. Perhaps like other Lords, however, I have received correspondence outlining the concerns of smaller and family businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses believes that the cost of these measures will fall harder on smaller businesses. Will those who choose to pay landfill tax rather than to reuse or recycle be instrumental in frustrating achievement of the disposal authorities' targets, or will the latter be able to control local business? At the moment, if I wished to have a massive clear-out from home, for example, I would order a skip, the rate for which would depend on whether I wished to dump only inert material or biodegradable material. Will the companies providing that service be put out of business? How will they be able to continue operating?
	Even if some way is found to control landfill operators, what will happen to loads exceeding the targets? Will they be turned away? Will the owners of the waste be charged by means of a fine accruing to the local authority?
	If targets are established, there will be penalties for failing to reach them; in Clause 6—on the borrowing and banking of landfill allowances, which is a sort of draw-down facility—prison is mentioned. Clause 25, however, allows the allocating authority—in England, the Secretary of State—to specify the penalty. The allocating authority can then allow extra time to pay or—as the Minister said—waive the interest on overdue sums or cancel the penalty entirely. There is a slight muddle here which detracts from the push that the Government are trying to make.
	The Government do not seem to be offering anything that will significantly impact on the amount of rubbish going to landfill. Ministers are coy about their targets—other than to link them to levels in 2001. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that foot and mouth erupted in February 2001. Have the 2001 figures been inflated by the amount of carcasses and ash that went to landfill during the outbreak?
	How will the tradable allowances be set? Will the allocating authority nominate the landfill site to which the waste authority may deliver loads? Will Birmingham, for example, be restricted to trading with south Staffordshire or north Warwickshire, or will it be able to trade anywhere? Will the permits carry the same location conditions? Will the sale of excess quota to Bradford, for example, result in streams of lorries travelling long distances along our roads? All noble Lords will be acutely aware of the public's concern about the quality of our air. Air pollution is one thing that we are definitely trying to reduce. Have the Government commissioned cost analyses of the possible results of the trading system? Can Ministers say where, when and how often the environment will win?
	I am similarly concerned that the Bill does not mention the revision of targets to allow for government action. I have in mind, for example, the recent decision to outlaw the feeding of swill to pigs. The catering waste that used to go to farms now goes to landfill. It is a significant amount of waste, totalling about 200,000 tonnes, I believe. That change happened overnight. In similar circumstances, other targets may have to be reset. Does the Bill allow for such changes? The Minister is keenly aware of biosecurity issues such as disease spread and the possibility of contamination leeching into watercourses. Perhaps he will touch on those issues in his reply.
	As a side issue, I am a little surprised that the Bill does not mention tighter controls on the state of biodegradable matter going to landfill. After the recent concentration on biosecurity, I was expecting to see some rules which are similar to those in Germany. My noble friend Lord Luke will address that issue later in the debate.
	I have two specific questions for the Minister. Will he clarify how the Government intend a waste disposal authority to deal with hazardous household waste? It has been suggested that, under the new arrangements, waste such as redundant batteries, and electrical goods including cameras and hairdryers, may not be covered by existing legislation. The provisions of the hazardous waste directive are very clear and definite, but the provisions of the landfill directive are less so. As we know, however, batteries and smaller electrical appliances known as white goods are sometimes placed in the same bins intended for landfill. Do the Government anticipate that waste disposal authorities will distinguish between the two forms of waste? If so, how will they do so?
	Does the Minister accept that the Government have a duty to inform all interested parties, especially industry, of the capital investment required of them to make the scheme work successfully? My understanding from the industry representatives who have come to see us is that implementation will cost £1.5 billion annually for the next 10 years. It is a huge sum.
	Does the Minister share my concern that some waste disposal authorities may decide that it is cheaper to use the trading scheme rather than to tackle the issue of reuse within their own boundary? I am sure that that is not one of the Bill's objectives, but I should be grateful for some clarification on that point. I have been contacted—to name only a few—by the Local Government Association, the National Farmers Union, Friends of the Earth, the Environmental Services Association and, as I said, the Federation of Small Businesses. All of them are keen that the Bill should work well, but they have concerns which we shall be able to discuss in detail in Committee.
	I cannot end my speech without at least mentioning Part 2 of the Bill, although—as noble Lords will see—it comprises only a small proportion of the overall legislation. It is a long time since 1999, and we have fought many battles since then—on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, on the Food Standards Agency and on the Animal Health Bill, to name but three. However, I am sure that the emissions trading scheme established in the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, to which the Minister referred, was intended to be voluntary. The Minister will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Government have made that scheme compulsory. I presume that this Bill will make such schemes compulsory. The Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he will clarify the point later.
	We welcome the Bill in principle. As I said, however, I am disappointed that the Government have failed to take a holistic approach to the waste problem. I fear that fly-tipping, for example—a subject which this House has often discussed—will increase rapidly. The Bill also, as I said, fails to tackle at source the growing problem of waste production. Nevertheless, I support the Bill in principle.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill meets our obligations under the European Landfill Directive and further develops emissions trading schemes. It certainly begins to combat climate change. It also moves towards sustainable waste management, which is to be welcomed. Our response has generally been supportive in tackling UK waste generation and disposal and meeting the challenges of the landfill directive. However, the Bill may be operating in isolation from the wider challenge of increasing household and industrial recycling and composting rates, which are to be found in the targets that are set in other European directives; for example, on packaging and packaging waste. This has burgeoned in recent years and there is undoubtedly a need for more constraints on the commercial instigators of ever more packaging, the disposal of which constantly presents problems for hard-pressed local authorities.
	The Bill relates to the wider review of waste management that has recently been published by the strategy unit. As regards the hierarchy of disposal mentioned by the Minister, I tend to agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Where is it? Where is the practice of the hierarchy laid down in the Bill and where are the targets that will be set in relation to each method of disposal?
	The question of emissions trading is one which we support in principle, but we are critical of the scope of the scheme in operation because only larger businesses can participate. Indeed, in future, the European Union scheme will operate in a different way from that of the United Kingdom. We will therefore seek to amend the Bill and I would ask the Minister what are his views in relation to these differences and how they can be reconciled. For example, we need to take account of these present failings and indeed future challenges. We will highlight the issues not included in the Bill, which we believe are crucially important to the future of both waste management and emissions trading.
	There are two problems with the Bill as it presently stands. First, the inclusion of incineration and its relation to recent Budget proposals for rises in landfill tax. That could mitigate against the increased use of recycling and composting and could well be the subject of amendments from these Benches.
	The removal of energy recovery will undoubtedly be the subject of an amendment to the Bill. It could emphasise and promote other forms of treatment in preference—for example, more recycling and composting, to which we as Liberal Democrats certainly give priority.
	As a Welsh Member of this Chamber, I welcome the devolving of functions in Chapter 2 to the Welsh Assembly and, through secondary legislation, it is important that the Welsh Assembly consults on and produces an appropriate scheme—which it has now done, and I welcome that. From my knowledge as a former constituency MP, I know that the cost of landfill is quite a burden on local authorities. One authority with which I am well acquainted was faced with the cost of landfill representing 4 per cent of its total budget. That very often applies to rural areas, where the total budget of such authorities globally is rather less than the much larger budgets of those in urban areas.
	I am also concerned about the impact of the legislation on agriculture. We must be aware of inadvertent inclusion of legitimate farming activities in this Bill. For example, agricultural waste within the scope of the Bill could be problematic. It could refer to biodegradable wastes and how they are disposed of.
	Fly-tipping has already been mentioned, and it is certainly on the increase. A possible result of the targets on householders could result in more fly-tipping of biodegradable material that waste disposal authorities will perhaps not go out to collect.
	Those of us who live in the countryside and are involved in farming have noticed the dumping of more cars, more tyres, more household waste, indeed even construction waste in quite large quantities. That occurs especially on the urban fringe. In a recent NFU survey of 2,000 farmers, two-thirds said that they suffered from fly-tipping. That is a very large number of those who are managing land. Fly-tipping can be dangerous to livestock and it pollutes. As we know, farmers can be held responsible and the cost of getting rid of the material that is dumped on their land can be very considerable.
	There is also the impact on agricultural land of excessive biodegradable applications and the run-off from agricultural land into water and watercourses, which could have a knock-on effect on drinking water, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
	The disposal of organic waste, particularly catering waste, on agricultural land could include meat. We all know of the problems relating to swill, but this could be another way in which meat products might affect grazing animals. Have DEFRA vets been consulted on the possible disposal of catering waste onto agricultural land and the impact of that on animal health? Have the Environment Agency and the Food Safety Agency been consulted, and have alternative methods of disposal of this material been examined?
	We believe that emissions trading is a big move forward. Indeed, the principle of robust compliance which the Minister outlined is vital as indeed is the point that it must be attractive to markets in order to allow purchases. This is innovative and is to be welcomed, but there is a tremendous amount of detail in the Bill that needs to be debated and discussed. We will address all of these matters in terms of amendments. Indeed, we will seek to make the Bill as effective as possible.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the Bill. I feel some sympathy for him because, on waste disposal and emissions, the Government really are between a rock and a hard place. However, this is not the first time my noble friend has been there.
	As the Minister explained, on the one hand the Government are under pressure from the packaging and landfill directives of the European Union. They are also under pressure from the Kyoto climate change undertakings. On the other hand, local authorities and business are concerned about the additional costs and the extra work produced by the regulations. The Green Alliance and the environmental groups say that the cost should be higher to encourage more environmentally friendly action. Business organisations say that costs should be lower because they are concerned about our competitiveness.
	What are the Government to do, stuck in the middle of all these pressures? The answer has to be some sort of compromise, which probably satisfies nobody but achieves a reasonable balance. I think that the Government have tried to do that in the Bill.
	I find that the Bill is consistent with past policies. It sticks to the principle of the polluter pays; indeed, the Bill says how much. It discourages climate change gases. It encourages a more pleasant environment. The trading element rewards firms and local authorities which are more diligent in reducing pollution. Incentives are needed. According to the Pre-Budget Report, there seem to be large discrepancies between the best and the poorly performing authorities. Waste and emissions trading mixes discipline with incentive to encourage the poorly performing authorities to raise their game.
	I am glad therefore that noble Lords welcome the Bill. To reject it out of hand would do a disservice both to business and to local authorities which are anxious to raise their levels of recycling and lower their levels of landfill.
	Nowadays, the more thoughtful businesses and local authorities are trying to show a more human face. They do so through corporate social responsibility. That has caught on because more and more businessmen realise that, by alienating the public, they alienate their customers and their own employees. Respect for the environment is a major element of corporate social responsibility. I believe that the Bill will be a step towards helping businesses to achieve their objectives in that respect.
	In reality, business has little alternative but to get to grips with these environmental issues and to make the most of the incentives provided. The incentives ensure that the amount of tax paid and the amount of regulation suffered are not fixed; they vary according to the efforts of individual businesses and authorities. At the same time as raising standards by rewarding reduced air and land pollution, the Bill also rewards the corporate social responsibility which business is trying to achieve. Higher standards may have some cost to business and industry but that can be recovered.
	Higher standards also provide economic benefits to the economy. A recent study demonstrated that less pollution reduced the cost of damage to rubber and painted surfaces of buildings. Business also benefits from better health achieved through a cleaner environment, and industry itself becomes more efficient by producing less waste. Therefore, the Government are right to encourage these high standards. The Government's Envirowise programme saved British business £43 million last year by encouraging better working practices.
	But there is more. The demand for high environmental standards has created a whole new environmental technology and services industry. In a very interesting letter in today's Financial Times, Mr John Acton makes that very point. He explains how the carrot-and-stick approach gives British industry a chance to lead the world in recycling and recovery technology. I agree. By promoting high standards here in Britain, we put the British environmental services industry in a strong position to exploit the enormous 500 billion dollar global market-place. Indeed, because of its potential, the DTI has made this industry one of the targets for its growth and innovation team.
	Here, I declare an unpaid interest. I am the honorary president of the Environmental Industries Commission. The commission is supported by all political parties, by academics, environmentalists and trade unions, and by more than 225 firms—large and small—in this sector. We all believe that we can create a clean and sustainable environment not only by regulation but also by the use of existing and new technologies, through science and by innovation and investment. I can tell the Minister that the Environmental Industries Commission welcomes the Bill.
	As well as technology and regulations, trading schemes, such as the one in the Bill, are an important and efficient way of encouraging higher environmental standards. They use the power of the market. By setting a market price for a pollutant, trading sends a powerful signal to business about the benefits of reducing its use of that pollutant. For example, the US sulphur dioxide trading system has proved a successful mechanism in reducing emissions of that pollutant.
	The Minister spoke of the importance of compliance. I agree. To be effective, trading schemes must have clear rules and penalties, together with a culture of acceptable behaviour on such matters as insider trading. The penalties are essential as they ensure that participants comply with the caps set out in the emissions trading scheme. In that way, the British public is sure that the environmental outcome that the scheme aims to achieve really is achieved; otherwise, the scheme simply becomes a casino for speculative traders and nothing is achieved.
	The schemes work best if they are mandatory, propose clear emission limits and set uniform penalties for non-compliance. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can assure me that confining the scheme to a limited number of participants means that it will contain those features and will not be another casino, as has happened in some industries. Perhaps the Minister can also say what happens if people who trade in such schemes eventually cannot pay. Will there be some kind of compulsory insurance?
	I support the Bill in its aim of ensuring that the polluter-pays principle is upheld. It lays out how much such polluters should pay by setting emission limits, thereby establishing a market price for pollutants. It achieves that in a very creative way. The Bill is not about more regulation; nor is it about placing more burden on industry. I believe that it encourages the higher standards and better environment that people are rightly demanding.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford, I, too, am concerned that so much is not included in the Bill. The main part of the Bill is concerned with how we handle biodegradable domestic refuse, and I shall largely confine my remarks to that aspect.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, I sympathise with the Government. I sympathise with them because they are between a rock and, in this case, a soft place—the soft place being biodegradable domestic refuse and the hard place being the European directives that could result in this country having to pay large financial penalties by 2015 if we do not alter our ways. A cynic might observe that the penalty schemes derived within the Bill—we do not have the details of them but we know they are there—are intended simply to raise funds in order to pay the penalties should we miss the targets. There is an element of justice in that because, if we fail to meet the targets, it will be because people on the ground have not met them.
	Be that as it may, the scheme as outlined brings about what I consider to be the ultimate "Sovietisation" of the waste disposal industry. We have a national plan, national targets and national timescales; we have devolved targets and devolved timescales; we have local allocations and local timescales; and we have trading and penalties. If that is not similar to something that went on in another country a while ago, I shall be very surprised.
	It is a sad fact that pollution prevention control and, now, waste disposal seem to have brought out the worst of government legislative practice. I refer to the latest report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee. At paragraph 26 on page 6, the report states:
	"The Bill is, effectively, almost a 'skeleton bill'. We have previously reported unfavourably on such bills, which leave many important matters to ministerial discretion. Even where the powers in the bill are subject to affirmative procedure, Parliament can only accept or reject what is proposed. It cannot amend it. Had this bill applied only to England, we would have considered seriously whether to recommend that some of what is proposed to be done by regulations should appear on the face of the bill. We appreciate that the highly unusual structure of the bill was to some extent dictated by the different legislative procedures under the devolution arrangements. While we do not propose any amendment at this stage, we draw the House's attention to the extent of the delegated powers in the bill".
	Half the clauses in the Bill—17 out of 34—involve proposals to bring in regulation. That is a part of the Bill that we cannot see and do not know. Therefore, it is very difficult to judge how or whether the Bill will work.
	There is another aspect to this issue. We do not know, and cannot know—and will not know I suspect for quite some time—under what financial regime the Bill will work. I shall return to that matter later on.
	In the good/bad old days—they were quite fun—Essex was involved in the disposal of more than 35 per cent of London's domestic refuse in addition to its own. So it might be said that I have considerably dirty boots on this subject. The waste was disposed of in Essex because it had places where it could go. The waste was used as a land reclamation tool. Despite the transport costs, it was the most economic—in terms of cost—way of disposal.
	The alternative in those days was the Edmonton incinerator, or its equivalent. That was in north London and took waste from about half-a-million people. We could never get accurate costings as to what it cost to dispose of waste through Edmonton. The best figure we could produce was that the cost was about three times that of disposing of waste in landfill in Essex.
	There has been a progression since those days. I shall not say that Edmonton was "superseded" because I think it is still going, but a new type of plant was brought in called SELCHP (South East London Combined Heat and Power). That was a very sophisticated modern plant, which still operates in south-east London. It involves incineration. But it involves incineration in order to generate electricity and, more importantly, community heating. If my memory is correct, it heats something like 5,000 to 6,000 houses. That was seen as a big step forward, as indeed it is.
	There is still an irreducible minimum of waste for disposal, but this provides a great deal of recovery to the community. The difficulties were the planning problems. The Nimby attitude runs strong in us all. No one likes to have a steady stream of waste-carrying trucks pouring past our front door. There is always the environmental fear—however unreal it may be and however sophisticated the plant may be to prevent risk—that something will go wrong and that people will get nasty noxious emissions from such a plant. But for such plants to be effective—and the direction that we must move in—they must be centred in or on the immediate fringe of a community because not least of the problems of waste disposal is that transport costs are very high. If one is in the business of recovery—be it energy or whatever—one has to minimise costs in order to make things work.
	I think we shall reach the point where communities or, in rural areas, small groups of communities will have once again to accept their own liability for waste disposal. Difficulties are created because of this planning problem; people are naturally and inherently reluctant to discuss and deal with the problem.
	I turn towards the future. I mention two other systems that go even further and which have a great future. Anaerobic fermentation will be the next big thing. Using this system one can take biodegradable domestic waste and produce ethanol, which the internal combustion engine runs on very successfully. That is the first possibility. But of course if one burns ethanol through the internal combustion engine, one still gets the normal atmospheric pollutants that one gets from burning hydrocarbon fuels in an internal combustion engine.
	One can take the ethanol system a stage further and produce methane, which is a purer fuel and more clean-burning and still can be used through an internal combustion engine or in furnaces or for electricity generation. That is fine, but once again the combustion process still produces atmospheric pollution. One can take the methane process a stage further—there are plants already beginning to do this—and produce hydrogen. That is the ultimate clean fuel: burning hydrogen produces water. Since one is using recovered hydrogen from plants that have already grown, that would be totally environmentally neutral and totally environmentally clean.
	Systems to do that, as I have said, already exist, but they are expensive. There is another possibility, for which I am grateful to the Economist. I read in the Economist that in the past two weeks plants in California and the Netherlands have been specifically created to deal with soiled nappies, which are to be converted into useable products—wallpaper was mentioned, shoe insoles, roof shingles and so on. There are a great many uses, but there are questions of course of market acceptability.
	The reason I mentioned that is not particularly to highlight that problem, but to highlight another. Those plants in order to operate have been established with a direct subsidy of £65 per tonne of soiled nappies that they use. If one compares that with the cost, without tax, of landfill disposal of about £10 per tonne, one can see immediately why concern about the financial regime—and lack of information about the financial regime for the future—is absolutely critical as to whether the Bill will work and whether the targets can be met.
	The nearest I can get on the financial side is an article in the Financial Times last Saturday, which seemed to indicate that local authorities will be obliged to operate under Treasury-set financial disciplines and incentives. I shudder at the thought. But, I shudder at the thought because I do not know what they are. It is extremely difficult to know how this House is to pass judgment on this Bill without that knowledge. So, if one can get over the philosophical difficulties with, what I would call, "bringing out the worst in the Government's legislative practice", the Bill is welcome, but it raises more questions than it answers.

Hunting with Dogs

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Rural Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to outline to the House my proposals for legislation to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. Few people would regard that as the most important issue for Parliament and government to resolve, but it is a serious issue on which many Members of the House and of the public have strong and polarised views. That is why we must return to the matter again.
	"The last time that Parliament considered a Bill on hunting with dogs, no agreement was reached between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is why our manifesto promised to,
	'enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs'.
	And that is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister gave me the job of fulfilling our manifesto promise by designing legislation to command support in Parliament and to make good law—legislation that will stand the test of time.
	"At the request of the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and the Countryside Alliance, I took the conclusions of the Burns inquiry as my starting point. His terms of reference required Lord Burns to consider all aspects of hunting with dogs, and the authority of his report is acknowledged on all sides.
	"The key issues emerging from the Burns report were cruelty and utility. Those two principles have run like a golden thread through the consultation process. Everything has been tested against those principles: are we preventing cruelty and are we recognising what farmers and others need to do to eradicate vermin or to protect their livestock or crops or the bio-diversity of an area?
	"My Bill is based on the answers to those two questions. After my Statement in March, I started a wide-ranging consultation process involving all interested parties, Members of Parliament and the public. Initially, the response generated more heat than light. About 7,000 people wrote asking me to leave everything unchanged. That matched about 7,000 who asked me to 'just ban everything'. However, others wrote detailed contributions based on evidence and their personal experience.
	"In May, I asked for detailed evidence to be submitted against a set of questions and criteria based on considering the issues of cruelty and utility and other questions raised by the evidence that I had received by that time. The amount of serious engagement increased greatly. In September, I chaired a series of public hearings in Portcullis House. The three main campaigning groups participated in full. Together, we heard expert witnesses from all sides of the argument who debated the merit of applying the principles of cruelty and utility to the activity of hunting mammals with dogs.
	"I want to pay tribute to the leaders of those groups—the Countryside Alliance, the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and the Middle Way Group—who fully engaged in a mature and intelligent manner with an issue on which each of them felt passionately and deeply. During the consultation, both sides have welcomed and praised a process that has been fair, open and transparent.
	"The two principles of cruelty and utility provide the golden thread that runs from the start to the finish of the process and through the drafting of the Bill. That golden thread is strengthened by the integrity of the process, basis of principle and strong focus on evidence that has led me to conclusions that, I hope, will command the support of the House.
	"I will publish a Bill this afternoon, but in advance of that, let me take this opportunity to outline the reasoning behind my conclusions. There has been support from all the organisations involved for the idea of drafting legislation on the basis of evidence and the two principles of cruelty and utility. That in itself is significant and should be noted by Members opposite.
	"On a number of occasions, John Jackson, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said:
	'If something is cruel, we should not be doing it'.
	Animal welfare organisations have acknowledged utility: things that need to be done for such purposes as eradicating vermin or protecting livestock. Indeed, they included a list of exemptions in the Deadline 2000 option that we debated in the last Parliament. The Middle Way Group has also acknowledged the validity of those two principles.
	"So the legislation is designed to recognise utility and prevent cruelty. Let me briefly spell out what that means. The utility test involves asking what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops and other property or biological diversity. The cruelty test involves asking which effective methods of achieving that purpose cause the least suffering.
	"All activities will be judged on the evidence available as to whether they meet both those tests. Where an activity has no utility and involves cruelty, it will not be allowed to continue. Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so those activities will be banned. Where an activity with dogs has general utility and there is no generally less cruel method, it will be allowed. Again, incontrovertible evidence has shown that the activities of ratting and rabbiting should be allowed to continue and that will be dealt with in the Bill.
	"For some activities the evidence is less clear cut. For these activities, I propose to set up an independent process to consider on a case-by-case basis whether particular activities involving dogs meet the two tests. That is consistent with the Burns findings. The procedure will require an application to an independent registrar to show why there is a need to undertake the proposed activity and that the cruelty test is satisfied. The procedure will then allow a prescribed animal welfare organisation to provide evidence as well.
	"If the registrar is satisfied that both tests are met, he will grant registration. If not, he will refuse. In considering applications, the registrar will also have to consider whether the applicant will be able to comply with standard conditions, such as requiring hunted animals to be killed quickly and humanely when caught. Applicants may also specify conditions to which their hunting will be subject.
	"If either side wants to appeal against the decision, they can do so to an independent tribunal. The tribunal will be a national body with a president at its head appointed by the Lord Chancellor. A panel will have a legally qualified chairman, normally sitting with two other members, one with land management experience and the other with animal welfare experience.
	"That is similar to the fair and effective way in which housing and employment law have been dealt with to a high standard for many years. Let me stress that we will not establish local tribunals. At every stage, there will be balance, fairness, clear principles, transparency and an emphasis on evidence within a process based on clear tests that enables hunters and those concerned with animal welfare to present their evidence.
	"The onus is now on those who want to undertake any activity to show that they can meet the tests of utility and cruelty. They may find ways of changing their activity to meet the two tests. That will be a matter for them, and I shall not prejudge the independent registrar. What is clear is that if they cannot meet the tests, the activity cannot continue. It is simple: if the activity cannot meet the tests, the activity will not happen; if it can, it will.
	"A number of commentators have tried to suggest that we intend going beyond the issue of hunting with dogs to other country sports. I want to make clear that there is no such intention. It is spelled out in our manifesto commitment:
	'we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting'.
	"I am also convinced by the evidence that there is no need to control falconry within the provisions of my Bill. In falconry, dogs are used to flush out quarry, so for the avoidance of doubt the Bill will specify such activities as exempted activities.
	"It may be argued that the two principles of utility and cruelty on which I am basing my proposals do not go wide enough. The social and economic contribution of hunting will be mentioned, or the argument that ancient freedoms should not be interfered with. Those are serious points. I do not take them lightly. But the key point is that nobody has—nor should have—a right to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Of course, we want to keep to a minimum the constraints on people's behaviour and activity, but to ask for the liberty to be cruel would be absurd. Parliament has the right to set limits and has done so in the past. That is what this Bill does.
	"The Bill seeks to prevent cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. Even being registered will not allow people to undertake activities in such a way as to cause avoidable or unnecessary suffering. People will be registered to hunt certain species with dogs in a specific area. They will not have licence to be cruel.
	"Let us not forget that we have to address the issue and bring it to a sensible resolution in a way that will stand the test of time rather than being a quick fix or a temporary solution that cannot be implemented. My conclusions are based on evidence and principle, not prejudice on either side of the argument. I hope that Members on both sides will see the merit of the proposals. They are fair and reasonable; they balance principle and evidence; and they can be enforced.
	"Most people want to see cruelty prevented. They also want farmers, gamekeepers and others who have to manage the land to be able to do so. There is no magic wand. There is no quick win. The basis of principle and evidence provides a golden thread that runs through the whole process and provides authority for the proposals themselves. I believe that the proposals will stand the test of time and are right. I commend them to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place—after, as too often happens, the Government leaked it to the press in advance. We shall all have to wait to read the Bill's detail, but I am grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government's thoughts.
	Am I alone in finding the Statement an astonishing reflection of the Government's priorities? Nothing is working properly in the country: not the trains; not the roads; not the health service; not, as we shall hear shortly, the examination system; and not, as we heard last week, the Chancellor's management of the economy. There is so much to do—so much that the Government have touched, tinkered and tampered with and made worse.
	We have a public pre-occupied with the growth of industrial action. We face a major threat from international terrorism. We have a nation on the verge of being taken to war with Iraq. To cap it all, we have daily reports of strife at the highest levels of government. It is against that background that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, unveils the flagship item of this Session's legislative programme—a Bill to ban hunting.
	It will not be in the countryside only that the Government's sense of priorities will be utterly disbelieved. Whatever Bill is presented to us later today we cannot be sure that it will be the same Bill as will be introduced to another place. I state clearly that we on this side have a free vote. It is not a party issue.
	In this response I speak for my party in condemning the bizarre sense of legislative priority, but I speak for myself now in expressing my views. I am bitterly disappointed in the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. We heard a lot of fine talk about compromise. But there should be no doubt that the end result of the proposals put forward will mean the end of hunting in most tracts of our countryside; the alienation and criminalisation of law-abiding people; and, ironically, the control of foxes by means far more cruel than those already in place and anything that takes place in a properly conducted hunt.
	Who do the Government think that will please? It will not please the fanatics who want a total ban on all country sports, or the abolitionists on Labour's Back Benches in another place who have already made clear that they will try to amend the Bill. The Government have not only lost their sense of priorities, they seem to be losing their political touch, too.
	What is it with this Government and the countryside? We are living through the greatest collapse of farm incomes and the gravest rural economic crisis in living memory. We have endured the agony of foot and mouth and the government-driven cruelty of the slaughter of millions of animals. And now we have this proposal. However it is dressed, it will be seen as an erosion of ancient freedoms and a passport to the destruction of a large part of our country life.
	The Government would be unwise to anticipate an easy ride. I fear that the Bill is a divisive Bill that cannot be driven either through another place or through your Lordships' House without impacting on other parts of the Government's legislative programme. And no so-called "modernisation" of procedure will change that.
	We shall look carefully at the Bill when it is published, but I shall ask questions immediately. There is to be rabbiting, ratting and falconry; a little bit of hunting in some places; and no hunting in other places. Where is the logic in that? Where is the principle? Where is the "golden thread", mentioned repeatedly by the Minister, running through the proposed legislation? I fear that it is a pretty slender thread.
	What is the case for placing the onus on country people to prove their innocence? Is not that one more example of the changing of the onus of proof to the accused, as we have seen in too many Bills recently from the Government? For how long will the proposed licences be granted? Will they be permanent licences, or time limited? On what grounds will the so-called "independent registrar"—an unelected official—be given life and death powers over hunting? Is not the so-called "independent tribunal" a beast on which the views of one member and another will inevitably disagree, with the casting vote perhaps going to the president appointed by the Lord Chancellor? That looks suspiciously like a right of appeal from one government department being given to an appointee of another. Who will those people be? Will conservation and employment be a criteria that affect their judgment on utility?
	Finally, I do not want to turn to individual activities. There will be ample scope for that in Committee. Does the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have any idea of the scale of damage that a ban on stag hunting will have on the fragile economy of Exmoor and the West Country?
	However one looks at it, it is an anti-hunting Bill. Hunting and country people have gone a long way to meet the Government. They consulted and they talked to the Government. They proposed constructive ways to move the debate forward. I am sure that spirit still remains. I hope that the Government will not pursue a divisive and damaging course that may play well with their Back-Benchers at a time of growing difficulty for the Government.
	The Minister's right honourable friend was right when he said that few people will regard this as the most important issue facing Parliament. Does the Minister have any influence? Is it too late for him to persuade his right honourable friend to draw the logical conclusions of his own Statement and set this Bill on one side to allow for further discussion?
	I fear that what is proposed will divide the country even further and that the real priorities of the public will yet again be neglected.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of these Benches, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. For a long time the Liberal Democrats' official policy has been to support a ban on hunting with dogs. I hope that the Government, too, will have a free vote on the issue. We recognise that a whole range of views are held with deep conscience on this matter. Both in another place and here, if and when we vote on the matter, we shall no doubt find ourselves in different Lobbies.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, one of the difficulties of responding to the Statement and questioning the Minister today is that we do not know what will be in the Bill when it is published this afternoon. We have no idea what the other place will do to it on a free vote before it arrives here. Therefore, the discussion is difficult. I must add that it is unusual to have a Statement announcing that a Bill will be starting its progress through Parliament. That is not a normal procedure. In my view we should be discussing other issues rather than discussing this matter yet again in your Lordships' House.
	If the Bill arrives and if your Lordships are prepared to return it in some form, it should be done expeditiously and that should be the end of parliamentary debate. Indeed, the Statement repeatedly says that it is important that the proposals stand the test of time.
	The first major question I have is whether the proposals are likely to do that. The mechanism being set up seems designed to result in a series of continuing arguments, area by area, hunt by hunt, before the tribunals. Rather than settling the argument, there must be at least a strong possibility that it will merely keep it rumbling on month after month, year after year. Sooner or later it will no doubt end up back in Parliament.
	My personal view is that hunting with dogs should not be allowed. People can judge anything else that I say in the light of that, although I am trying to take an objective view.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Greaves: No, my Lords. I am trying to take an objective view of the Statement. I believe that hunting with dogs should not be allowed. If that is not the view of Parliament—if the Bill cannot be got through Parliament—my second choice is that the current situation should continue more or less as it is. The third way proposals, which have been associated with, among others, some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, and the current proposal risk becoming a real can of worms. They will not bring this question to a close; they will merely continue it year after year. I believe that the Government have the right to bring the matter before Parliament. They should have done so several years ago and sought a firm resolution of it then but they were not able—or not prepared—to do so.
	I turn to the meaning of cruelty and utility. When the Bill is published, will it clearly define those words? According to the Statement, they are supposed to be the golden thread that will bind all of this together. However, the Statement contained the assertion that meeting the two tests will be a decision for the independent registrar. It stated:
	"I shall not prejudge the independent registrar".
	If the Government are not prepared to prejudge the tribunal that they will set up, what understanding do they have of the likely outcomes of the process that they are establishing? I hope that the Minister can tell us. What is his best estimate of how much fox hunting will remain in this country if the Bill is enacted and the procedure is set up? The Government must have an idea of that; if they have not, it would be extraordinary for them to introduce the Bill. Are they in fact saying, "We are passing the buck to other people. We do not know what the outcome will be"? I hope that the Minister will tell us what the expected outcome is likely to be.
	Finally, if the Bill is passed, what levels of supervision and control of the remaining hunts are there likely to be, once those hunts have been allowed to continue by the tribunal? Will that involve the sort of regime envisaged by the Middle Way Group or has that all been put to one side? Once hunts have been told, "Yes, you can continue", will that simply involve the current situation?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, both spokespeople for the Opposition dealt with the Bill in a calm and sensible way, which, as your Lordships will be aware, has not always been the case in relation to this subject.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, understandably asked: why are we giving this matter priority? As my right honourable friend said in the Statement, this may not be the most major issue but it has been around for an awfully long time, it has caused a serious problem between this House and another place and it needs to be resolved. The timing of that was in effect determined in our manifesto at the previous election: we needed a period of consultation to establish whether there was consensus. We have advanced a proposition that at least reflects many of the points put to my right honourable friend during that consultation, although it may not create an entire consensus. In particular, the issues involved are: is it cruel or more cruel than other methods of control and is it useful? In that context, is it useful with regard to damage to livestock, crops and biodiversity?
	This issue, as I said, has been around for a long time and it needs to be resolved; it will be resolved by this parliamentary process. If the end result feared by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, means, in effect, the end of hunting, that in itself would have to be a concession. Hunting with dogs is inevitably cruel and there is no way in which the utility can outweigh the cruelty. We are looking at a balance between cruelty and the avoidance of suffering, and utility in terms of pest control and crop protection.
	This issue will be dealt with by another place in the first instance with a free vote on, I believe, all sides of the House and it will be dealt with here with a free vote on all sides of the House. We have also said that at the end of the process we want to resolve the issue. By considering the proposals in another place and here, I hope that we will recognise their merits. No one will be 100 per cent satisfied by the proposals but they reflect the key issues.
	It is all very well for the noble Baroness to talk about the erosion of ancient liberties. However, if, as a result of a mature judgment, those ancient liberties are seen to maintain a system that involves unnecessary cruelty to animals, those ancient liberties, frankly, have to go. If, however, a balance can be demonstrated in favour of hunting or hunting can be adjusted to alter that balance, those liberties can, to that extent, be maintained.
	I was a little concerned about the response of the noble Baroness; she does not normally utter threats. I was not clear whether she was speaking for herself or the Opposition when she referred to the effects on other parts of the legislative programme. This issue needs to be dealt with on its merits one way or another, just like any other piece of legislation. Part of the problem with regard to the way in which this House and another place previously dealt with such legislation is that somehow its significance was elevated above that of other legislation.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I suggested that on all sides of the House this is a very controversial issue and that it will take time; my remarks should not be taken in any other way. The Minister slightly misunderstood what I said. This is a controversial Bill, which I believe he accepts, and the time that we spend going through it will obviously take away from the time that we can spend on the other Bills that I listed, which we will not be tackling.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, to that degree, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification.
	The noble Baroness asked a number of questions, in particular about how the registration system would work. A registration will operate initially for three years and it will be renewable. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked whether hunting could continue and under what terms: there may be conditions attached to the registration. If those conditions are not met, the registration could be withdrawn. Normally, it would last for three years. Inspectors from prescribed animal welfare bodies will be empowered to inspect the hunting arrangements.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, slightly surprised me when, expressing his own views on the matter, he said that he would rather have the status quo than something short of an absolute and crude ban. That is an odd position for the Liberal Democrats to take on this issue.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I made it clear that that was my view, not that of the Liberal Democrats.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the first part of what the noble Lord said was his view and I should hope that none of it was the Liberal Democrat view.
	On the Bill's definitions, cruelty will mean unnecessary suffering to animals and utility will mean the prevention of damage to, in effect, the agricultural sector and in terms of biodiversity. Both of those terms will be narrowly defined.
	The noble Lord challenged me to estimate the extent to which hunting would remain operational as a result of these proceedings. He knows very well that I shall not rise to that challenge. We suggest that the registrar will take an independent judgment on these matters; having dealt with matters in that way, it would be wrong for the Government to imply that we have a target one way or the other. The Bill will achieve a reduction in the total amount of unnecessary cruelty resulting from hunting and the issue will have been resolved in this Parliament. No doubt noble Lords will raise other points.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister said that there would be a free vote in this House. Will there be a free vote in the House of Commons?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I said that there would be a free vote in both Houses. Perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me. I said that as far as my party is concerned there will be a free vote in both Houses.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, will the Minister take back to his colleagues the thought that it might be a good idea if the Government stopped interfering in everyone's business the whole time? Here we have a sport which has been going on for hundreds of years and all of sudden it is to be criminalised. The noble Lord says that this is as a result of mature judgment. It is nothing of the kind. If we are such a mature society, why do so many people end up in prison? The answer is that we are not a mature society. Does the Minister agree that the Government are making a great mistake in saying that we should abandon all these sports and kill all the hounds and horses? I do not go hunting at all but it seems to me that what is proposed, on the basis that it will stop some cruelty, is to see the issue completely the wrong way round. Does the noble Lord agree?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, for well over 100 years this Parliament has had a record of taking legislative means to reduce cruelty to animals. There is a dispute about the degree of cruelty involved in this respect but it is not an innovative thing for Parliament to legislate to reduce cruelty to animals. This is the next step. I referred to mature judgment. There are polarised views on this issue. A step was taken which brought together, at least for a period, the various campaigning organisations. We tried to take the best of their views into account before proposing the process that will be incorporated in the Bill.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and, in due course, the Bill. This long-running sore needs to be dealt with once and for all and here is an opportunity to do so. Can my noble friend enlarge on the exclusions from the ban? He mentioned ratting and rabbiting. Are there to be geographical exclusions? Or will they be nation-wide?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, they will be nation-wide exclusions. That applies also to falconry where the argument is slightly more balanced. But my right honourable friend has reached the conclusion that falconry should also be excluded. All of the exclusions will be national exclusions.

Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent unnecessary suffering to particular mammals. He will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, has brought forward a Bill to make illegal unnecessary suffering by any wild animal. Do the Government support that Bill? If it is passed, will it not render this legislation wholly unnecessary?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the original Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was withdrawn. However, it could have potentially dealt with a much wider range of issues than provided for within the Bill we are now discussing. Hunting with dogs has caused huge controversy for years. It is an issue we need to resolve. We shall propose further legislation on animal welfare more generally, but this is the issue that has caused the controversy we are now attempting to resolve.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, how did the Government come to conclude that it is unacceptably cruel for a hound to bite the back of the neck and sever the spinal cord of a fox but that it is perfectly acceptable for a terrier to carry out the same operation upon a rat or a rabbit?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is the balance between the degree of cruelty and the unnecessary nature of the cruelty rather than the absolute pain of the animal. We are talking about unnecessary suffering. If you are trying to get rid of rats there will be some suffering involved. We are attempting to minimise the degree of suffering, but the term is "unnecessary suffering" balanced against the necessity for pest control in the first place.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarification. The Statement says,
	"we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting".
	What, for example, would happen if the Scottish Executive introduced a Bill to ban such activities, as it has done already in regard to foxhunting? Would Westminster overrule Edinburgh?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. When I refer to "national" I mean that the Bill relates to England and Wales. This issue is devolved to Scotland. It can take its own decisions in this area. Therefore the decisions taken there do not in any way bind the UK Government in relation to England and Wales. Nor is Scotland subject to the UK Parliament in this respect.
	I can perhaps take this opportunity of correcting something I said earlier. Although the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, was withdrawn, it was immediately replaced due to a technical error. I am sorry for misleading the noble Viscount.

Lord Mancroft: My Lords, as a board member of the Countryside Alliance, I pay tribute to Mr Alun Michael for the very open and careful way he carried out this difficult consultation process. We shall look very carefully at the Bill when it is brought forward and try to play as constructive a role as possible.
	Having said that, I should like to ask the Minister about the licensing or registration system. We are told that the onus will be on the people who want to undertake any activity to show that they can meet the tests of utility and cruelty. That is all very well. However, bearing in mind that the experts at the public hearings made perfectly clear—as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in his excellent report—that there was not sufficient evidence to come to a safe conclusion on cruelty, can the Minister tell the House how ordinary citizens will be able to do so if the experts cannot?
	Why is conservation not mentioned in the list of features in the utility definition? The conservation of our countryside is paramount and hunting's role in that is most important. That appears to have been missed out. Is there a reason?
	Can the Minister tell the House what is a prescribed animal welfare organisation, bearing in mind the helpful contribution during the hearings of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, who made it perfectly clear that it would be very difficult to have an animal welfare organisation that had been for years campaigning against a particular activity responsible for regulating it? I believe he used the analogy of having someone from the temperance society on a licensing board.
	I studied the Burns report as carefully as any noble Lord, possibly more than most; I attended the hearings and I took as much part as I possibly could. I could not see a single scrap of evidence to justify a ban on stag hunting and on coursing. If the Government were so confident that these activities could not meet the cruelty and utility tests, they, too, should be subject to registration. If they could not meet those tests they would not get a licence. I get a feeling that the dangerously fragile community of Exmoor and the small and equally fragile coursing community will be the political footballs which are kicked to the Minister's Back-Bench colleagues. It has nothing to do with utility or cruelty.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as to conservation, the Statement refers—this will be a reference in the Bill—to the protection of livestock, crops and bio-diversity. There is therefore at least some reference to conservation.
	I am not in a position to give a definitive list of the designated animal welfare organisations. Obviously, there are organisations which self-evidently might fulfil that title. However, we want to proceed on the basis of as much consensus as possible.
	The noble Lord referred to hare coursing and, I think, deer hunting. We want to restrict ambiguity in the Bill. There is evident cruelty in hare coursing with no significant utility in that activity. The balance was therefore clear and there was not an issue of judgment for the registrar to take. We also considered the evidence in the Burns report and that given to the hearings in regard to deer hunting. We concluded that there is evidence that deer hunting with dogs cannot meet the criteria in relation to the avoidance of unnecessary suffering. Therefore, again, there was not an issue of judgment for the registrar to take.

Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement. I declare an interest as president of the Countryside Alliance and as someone who hunts regularly with foxhounds and most particularly with deer-hounds in the West Country.
	Does the Minister agree that we all want to achieve legislation that has the respect and support of the rural communities to which it will apply; legislation which, it is to be hoped, will not create a constitutional crisis between the two Houses; and which will not result, as that in Scotland has, in damage to animal welfare?
	I am greatly concerned about the explanation that the Minister has just given about deer hunting. Will he look carefully with his colleagues at the material that was placed before my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael from the National Park on Exmoor to the effect that a ban on deer hunting would have a devastating effect on the local economy, on the local community and on the deer herd? Will he re-examine the independent report prepared by Professor Savage for the National Trust which said that simply to impose a ban on deer hunting without making a considerable number of other legislative changes—in particular in relation to firearms, following up wounded deer on other people's land and so on—would have a devastating effect on the deer herd there?
	Finally, does the Minister agree that it would be wrong, in order to resolve human conflicts—differences of opinion between people in this House and another place—to take steps which destroy one of the great jewels of those western moorlands; namely, our deer herd? That could happen if a ban is imposed and there is no alternative management structure in place. What do the Government propose to do about imposing such a structure and financing it?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend has seen the evidence that was submitted in relation to deer hunting and has taken careful note of the argument. He has visited Exmoor and has spoken to a significant number of people there who are concerned not only with the effects of the impact of the Bill but also with developing a positive deer management strategy. His conclusion in relation to the terms of the Bill was that the evidence was fairly clear that deer hunting as it is carried out cannot meet the test of cruelty. I repeat: in those circumstances it was not sensible to put it into the box where the registrar had to make an issue of judgment.
	I accept that there will need to be some new measures in certain parts of the country in relation to the management of deer. That is the matter on which my right honourable friend was attempting to start discussion when he visited Exmoor. That does not override the objective of the Bill, which is to avoid unnecessary cruelty. His judgment and the judgment of the Government is that deer hunting does fall into that category.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, as deputy president of the Countryside Alliance, I ask the Minister: is it not sensible to assume that the Bill that will come to this House from the Commons will probably be very different from the Bill that is envisaged in the Statement? Might it not be sensible to set up a Select Committee of this House to review the evidence that was given at the Portcullis House inquiry?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the procedures of this House are a matter for the House. I do not believe that that would be a sensible procedure. The evidence has been gone over, first, by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and by the process that I have described. There are not a huge number of new arguments to be discussed. As to whether the Bill will be exactly the same as the one being introduced today, that is a matter for another place on a free vote. Therefore, I can neither agree nor disagree with the noble Lord.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I, like others, am puzzled by the decision to allow cuddly rabbits to be hunted by dogs but not pestilential foxes? Why is that so? Is it because the rabbits are followed by people in jeans and tee-shirts and the foxes by people in red jackets and bowler hats? Is that perhaps the reason?
	The following paragraph appears on page 4 of the Statement:
	"A number of commentators have tried to suggest that there is an intention of going beyond the issue of hunting with dogs to other country sports. I want to make it clear that there is no such intention. It is spelt out in our manifesto commitment: 'we have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting'".
	But how long is that for? The manifesto operates only until the end of this Parliament. Is the Minister prepared to give an absolute assurance that new Labour will never bring forward any propositions on any legislation to ban angling and shooting?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend—my ex-noble friend as, regrettably, I must call him these days—is well aware, no government or Parliament can completely bind the next. The views of the Labour Party and the Labour Government were clearly expressed in that manifesto and have been clearly reiterated today.
	As to whether this is in a sense a class issue—or a dress issue—people will be perfectly able to go around wearing hunting pink and rabbiting as a result of the Bill. It has nothing to do with that. It is a question of whether the balance of utility as regards vermin—rats and rabbits—is such that it outweighs any concern about unnecessary cruelty in those areas. That is the judgment that has been made in terms of that exclusion.

Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I should like to pursue a point made by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He mentioned that in the tribunal there would be one member with land management experience and one with animal welfare experience. Is the Minister aware that during the hearing earlier this summer at Portcullis House chaired by his right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael, the representative of the RSPCA was asked by Lembit Opik, the Liberal Democrat MP, whether the RSPCA's main aim was to ban hunting or to improve animal welfare? After much prodding, the answer was that the aim was to ban hunting. Is it right that that organisation should even consider being represented on any tribunal sitting in judgment on anyone applying for a hunting licence?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the proposal does not prescribe which organisation anyone should come from. But it is clear that there are two sides to these arguments. Those who have experience of land management are by and large in favour of something like the status quo; those who have experience of animal welfare are by and large in favour of restricting or banning hunting. That is bound to be the position, although not exclusively so. We want a balanced tribunal, as we have in many other respects, with a legally qualified chair. That is the tried and tested method for resolving issues where there are different interests and where there are bound to be different initial opinions, as there are in almost every tribunal. The point is to come to a conclusion based on the merits of a particular case.

Lord Monson: My Lords, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, after all their lengthy consultations and researches, have the Government any hard evidence that hunting is more cruel than shooting or fishing? If, as most of us suspect, they have no such evidence, how on earth can they justify singling out hunting for criminalisation, unless it is for reasons of comparative electoral advantage?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord's last remark indicates that there is a popular support for at least some degree of restriction on hunting, whereas clearly there is not for restricting shooting and fishing in the way that he suggests.
	As to the issue of cruelty, what has clearly caused a polarisation of opinion is whether or not the way in which the animal is killed at the end of a hunt is unnecessary cruelty over and beyond other forms of vermin control. It is generally the view of those who wish to restrict or ban hunting that that is the case. That is the issue that has to be resolved. That is the process that we have put into operation by means of the Statement and the Bill introduced in another place today. That issue will be resolved in this Parliament.

Tomlinson Inquiry

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on the inquiry into A-level standards. The Statement is as follows:
	"I would like to make a Statement on the inquiry into A-level standards.
	"My predecessor, the right honourable Member for Birmingham Yardley, invited Mike Tomlinson to carry out an independent inquiry into the concerns raised in September by headteachers' representatives and some examiners about the grading of students' work in this year's AS and A2-level examinations.
	"I would like to begin by thanking Mike Tomlinson for the substantial work that he has done. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.
	"The initial inquiry investigated allegations about the setting of standards for A-level grades this year, in particular, ensuring that the conversion from marks to grades was determined according to proper standards and procedures.
	"Mr Tomlinson's report of 27th September identified weaknesses in the way the exams had been assessed this year and recommended a process of regrading. The outcomes of the regrading exercise were announced to Parliament on 15th October.
	"Mr Tomlinson's final report states at paragraph 2 that:
	'I remain convinced that my interim report and the subsequent review of grade boundaries dealt effectively with the major concerns and allegations about manipulation of the grading process'.
	This is a strong statement, which I wholeheartedly endorse, and I pay tribute to my right honourable friend for setting the process in motion.
	"Mr Tomlinson goes on to say at paragraph 3 of his report that:
	'Action by QCA and the other regulatory bodies on my earlier recommendations, allied to further proposals made in this final report will, in my view, secure the standards and integrity of next year's examinations'.
	Again, I endorse that view and want to express my confidence in the commitment of Sir Anthony Greener and Ken Boston at the QCA, working with my department, to implement the necessary steps set out by Mr Tomlinson.
	"The QCA has already followed the recommendations given in Mr Tomlinson's first report, working together with the exam boards, the regulatory authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland and the headteachers' associations.
	"As a further short-term measure to help restore confidence in the system, Mike Tomlinson has recommended that, for the January and summer 2003 examinations only, an appropriately qualified individual should observe and report publicly to the QCA board on the awarding process. I agree with this recommendation and believe that Mike Tomlinson is best qualified to fill the role. Therefore, after discussion with the QCA, I have invited Mr Tomlinson to carry out this responsibility and I am pleased to say that he has accepted. I have also accepted Mr Tomlinson's other short-term recommendations in paragraph 69 of his report for further strengthening of the system for 2003.
	"In addition, I have received separately from the QCA advice on the extra resources needed to deliver the 2003 exams securely. I can announce today that I am prepared to make available up to £6 million once detailed costing work has been completed. This money will mainly be spent on ensuring that the necessary markers can be recruited.
	"Separately, the QCA has advised the Government that in order to ensure timely delivery of English results at both GCSE and AS/A2-level in summer 2003 the GCSE English literature examination be moved prior to the 26th May bank holiday to relieve pressure on markers. The Government have accepted this recommendation for this year only.
	"I turn now to the medium and long-term recommendations of Mr Tomlinson's report. Mr Tomlinson has gone about the task thoroughly, and it follows extensive consultation. His proposals are designed to ensure maintenance of the A-level standard in future years.
	"Mr Tomlinson's first recommendation is for the systematic reform of the administrative requirements for the AS and A2 examinations to reduce the demands placed on schools and colleges by the awarding bodies' differing requirements and practices. I agree and I have asked the QCA to take this forward urgently with the awarding bodies.
	"Secondly, Mr Tomlinson calls for the professionalisation of examining to include high-quality training for examiners and examination officers linked to career development. We welcome these suggestions and will take them forward jointly with the QCA.
	"Thirdly, Mr Tomlinson recommends clarifying and making more transparent the relationships between my department, the QCA and the awarding bodies through a memorandum of understanding. I agree and can tell the House that work is in hand to draw up such a memorandum. In addition, I will consider very carefully the points made at paragraph 96 of his report about the varied responsibilities of the QCA and how they can best be addressed.
	"Fourthly, Mr Tomlinson's report calls for arrangements to ensure, and reinforce confidence, that standards over time are being safeguarded. He recommends that the QCA should establish an independent committee whose role would be to review and, if necessary, advise publicly on whether standards are being maintained. We agree and will put this into effect.
	"Fifthly, Mr Tomlinson recommends simplification of the rules governing re-sits and 'cashing-in' of AS units. I accept this recommendation and I am asking the QCA to consider this urgently with the awarding bodies and other partners.
	"Sixthly, the report recommends changes to the timetable for publication of A-level results to give more time for marking and awarding. We will consult with the QCA, university interests, colleges and schools to see whether such a change can be achieved.
	"Finally, in the medium term, Mr Tomlinson recommends increasing the use of ICT in the administration and marking of public examinations and eventually in the examining process itself. We agree that this issue needs to be addressed, and I am asking the QCA to put forward fully costed options, which I will consider positively.
	"In the longer term, Mr Tomlinson has identified two issues for consideration. The first is the de-coupling of AS and A2 to create two free-standing qualifications as part of the 14-19 policy developments. Mr Tomlinson suggests that consideration should be given at the same time to other changes in the design of A-level assessment. We agree that these issues are important. They will be considered as part of the 14-19 reforms in the Next Steps document on this matter to be published early in the New Year.
	"Secondly, Mr Tomlinson calls for further work on the practicality of introducing a post-qualifications admission system for entry to higher education. Together with the QCA, university interests, colleges and schools, we will explore the practicality of moving to such a system.
	"The AS/A2 examination is a fundamentally sound system. It will become a better system as a result of Mr Tomlinson's work. But, as he says,
	'The standard has not been lowered if an increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved teaching and hard work by students'.
	"I invite honourable Members to join me in paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson's first-class work in carrying through the issues, which now need to be tackled".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I echo her tribute and thanks to Mike Tomlinson and his team for their work in preparing these reports in the relatively short time they were given.
	However, I am not yet sure what went wrong, or who, or what, was responsible. I agree that the report should look forward to making sure that this fiasco never happens again. However, Mike Tomlinson said on Radio 4 today that he did not blame anyone for what had happened. Ministers must be asked some serious questions. If Mike Tomlinson says that no-one is to blame, that is all right: no individual is to blame, the department is not to blame, the examination bodies are not to blame, and students and teachers are certainly not to blame. So, as the newly enrolled infant child would say, the debacle just happened like magic.
	Was the system at fault? Was it a lack of clear guidance from the department? What, in the Minister's mind, led to the A-level fiasco, which my honourable friend in another place, Damian Green, described as the worst crisis in the history of public examinations in this country?
	So many young people have been affected by the debacle. An air of uncertainty has prevailed throughout the summer and, sadly, on into the autumn. What comfort can the current second-year sixth-form students draw from the Statement? They are almost three-quarters of the way through the two-year course. They have completed their AS exams and are now sitting their A2s. The AS exams have already been marked. As the film world would say, they are already in the can, so that work cannot be undone.
	My honourable friend Damian Green in another place has set five tests against which the Secretary of State's response must be judged. First, has the examination system been freed from the suspicion of political interference? The Statement certainly does not address that point. Secondly, will the examination's standards be maintained at a high level? We can only wait and see on that. Thirdly, can we be sure that the marking system will be efficient? Things will need to improve very quickly if the impact is to affect the young people who are sitting examinations at the moment and will be sitting them only a matter of weeks from now. Fourthly, does the Minister agree that young people are being asked to sit too many examinations? Has that featured in the thinking so far? Again, that is not addressed by the report. Fifthly, does the examination system work efficiently with the university admissions system? That remains an open question and should be taken into any review. The Statement does not satisfy all those tests, but it would be helpful to have the Minister's comments on some of those questions today.
	We welcome the setting up of the independent committee to advise on whether standards are being maintained year on year. When we called for such an independent committee, the Minister for School Standards resoundingly rejected the suggestion, so we are pleased that it has now been taken on board and adopted.
	Will the Government follow Tomlinson's wish to separate AS and A2 examinations as part of a review of post-16 examinations? My honourable friends in another place have called for such a review, which should also include looking at the issue of exam overload.
	How many more examiners and markers will be needed to ensure that an efficient system is in place? The noble Baroness has talked about the system being dealt with in the short to medium term and in the long term. It would be helpful to know how many more will be needed. It has been difficult to enrol and recruit them so far. What magic thing is going to be conjured out of the air to bring forward more people in the timescale that is needed to be effective in the short term?
	Will the Government indicate their plans for changing the timing of the examination in preparation for higher education?
	Neither the Tomlinson review nor the Secretary of State have explained why Sir William Stubbs was sacked. On what basis was that decision made? Tomlinson has concluded that the relationship between QCA and the Government works well, but that relationship can have been far from well when a chairman of QCA could be summarily sacked without explanation. It would be helpful to have some elucidation on that point.
	This aspect of the report presents my party with some difficulty. If we, students, teachers and parents are to be convinced that there is no ministerial manipulation or interference, the QCA must be made truly independent. There is too much suspicion. Whether it is real or imagined is not important. As long as that suspicion is there, it is important that it should be addressed. That suspicion is not simply on our part, but on the part of many others outside the confines of the Westminster village. Will the Minister confirm that the Tomlinson view on this issue will be rejected and that the QCA will be made truly independent?
	This has been a sorry saga and it is not yet over. Confidence will not be restored overnight. It is going to take time. However, one thing is crucial: this shambles must never be repeated, and that includes for the children currently taking GCSEs and A-levels.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement in this House. I also thank Mike Tomlinson for the two reports, which have done something to sort out a little bit of the mess that the A-level system got into this summer.
	We have a lot of sympathy with a number of the issues that arise in the second report. We are particularly glad to see that Tomlinson's medium and long-term proposals address decoupling AS from A2-levels, and in particular the question of whether we are over-examining pupils in the upper reaches of our secondary schools. We also welcome the consideration of the timing of the university admissions process—the possibility of a post-qualification admissions process and perhaps a move towards a six-term school year. These all seem very sensible moves. We would like them to be taken further and would like some reassurance from the Minister that the Government will be looking at these issues seriously.
	We also very much welcome the proposals for the training of examiners and for the simplifying and tightening up of the rules on resits for the AS and A2 exams and for the clarification of the relationship between the department and the QCA in the attempt to re-establish confidence that standards are to be safeguarded.
	The most astonishing aspect of the first Tomlinson report was the statement that there was no clear understanding between the QCA and the examining boards on the standards to be applied to AS and A2-level. I am glad that the proposals in the report to set up machinery will, in Mr Tomlinson's words,
	"secure the standards and integrity of next year's examinations".
	However, I am not sure that I share his confidence that it can be achieved without some decoupling of the QCA from the department.
	One of the statistics that we learnt in the process of our discussions about what happened is that one third of the officials who staff the QCA come from the Department for Education and Skills and most of those fill the top positions in the QCA. There is a great danger that, far from putting in place robust structures, the report is asking the Government, the QCA and the boards just to go away and hatch up a way of working together that suits them. One has visions of the press officers from these organisations working together for the six weeks before the announcement of the results in 2003, just as they did in 2002.
	Is all this talk of independence meaningless? What would be the point of a memorandum of understanding between the DfES and the QCA while the Secretary of State retained power to hire and fire the chief executive and to second members of his department to senior positions in the QCA? Surely the Secretary of State should order the break-up of the QCA and establish a thoroughly independent examinations regulator accountable directly to Parliament, not to the DfES.
	Secondly, we are not as confident as Mike Tomlinson is that all the issues relating to this year's A-levels have been cleared up. He says:
	"I remain convinced that my interim report and the subsequent review of grade boundaries dealt effectively with the major concerns and allegations about manipulation of the grading process".
	Yet we also know, again from what has subsequently emerged after the first Tomlinson report, that, while there was a review of grade boundaries, it did not look at scripts where the marks were within six marks of the grade boundary. That has left a vast number of pupils unhappy with the situation. The initial concern arose where scripts had been submitted with work that had been done on assessment, which teachers had already seen and which came back ungraded, with a complete fail mark, which the teachers were unable to understand. The proposed adjusting of the candidates' grades without any reference to their scripts should be ruled out. It was identified by Nick Tate of the SCAA back in 1997. Is the Secretary of State prepared to rule out that practice now?
	Where in the Statement is there any satisfaction for the thousands of students who were robbed of their legitimate grades this summer? The report says that any remaining concerns have been "dealt with". But there are examples. My noble friend in the other place has already mentioned the head of Knights Templar School which has outstanding problems still with the scripts submitted. Mike Tomlinson wrote to the head only a few days ago saying,
	"I cannot personally see anything that can be done about the 2002 examination and results, but the final decision is not mine".
	If it is not his decision then whose is it? He has psychology students who have to re-sit their examinations in January because they had been so badly done by in last summer's fiasco. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that every student who took AS or A2-level exams this year will have the grades that they deserve?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Sharp and Lady Blatch, for their tributes to Mike Tomlinson and to his team. I am sure that he will be grateful to receive them.
	I shall deal, first, with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. She raised the important question of who is to blame. I refer to what Mike Tomlinson concluded. He said that a number of factors were involved. The first was what he described as the "perceived pressure" on examination boards from the QCA. Noble Lords will remember that we discussed some of these issues in the earlier Statement on Tomlinson—Part 1, if I may so describe it.
	The second factor was the lack of guidance on the level of attainment expected for a particular grade in an individual paper. The third was the lack of a common understanding about the standards required to ensure that the overall A-level standard was maintained. I am sure that, having read Mike Tomlinson's report, noble Lords will be reassured that the issues where he firmly places blame will be addressed. I believe that we can take enormous comfort from the words within his statement that the 2003 standards are secure.
	Both noble Baronesses raised the issue of the relationship between the QCA and Ministers. As noble Lords will be aware—Mike Tomlinson has been vigorous in saying this—no one, including Mike Tomlinson, has said that there has been any political interference in the work of the QCA. But we accept the need to clarify the relationship with the QCA—hence my saying that we are already working on a memorandum of understanding. We have absolutely no doubt that the independence of the QCA in its role as regulator must be clear and beyond question.
	I agree with Mike Tomlinson that in the day-to-day workings of our relationship we need to have day-to-day working partnerships. I do not necessarily accept the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about secondments. My experience of them has been that people behave appropriately in all cases. However, I accept the underlying principle that has been raised. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is deliberating on this matter and considering whether there is anything further that we should do. I accept that we should produce a memorandum of understanding.
	We also agree that the responsibility of the QCA for delivering the key and basic skills qualification needs to be separated from its other responsibilities. We are going to look further at the suggestion that national curriculum tests are also placed in the hands of another body.
	I turn to the professionalisation of the examination system. I accept that we have to find markers. A proposal involving £6 million has been put forward to the QCA. We are waiting for its costed proposals which will also tell us exactly how it proposes to go about recruiting. We have been quite interested in the pilot schemes that have been conducted by Edexel and LCR. Graduates and postgraduates have been used and they were found to mark consistently and effectively. We welcome Mike Tomlinson's endorsement of that approach.
	We are looking to see how to improve and professionalise the service of examinations. We shall take this matter forward with due rigour and seriousness because it is very important. I believe that I have commented on the timing of exams.
	I wish to spend a moment or two on some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Mike Tomlinson has received a number of submissions and had a number of discussions with individuals and organisations. I can say to the noble Baroness that as regards the particular issues that she raised, he has considered very carefully the question of five or six marks on either side. He has rejected the arguments made having carefully considered them. I believe that he is a man of integrity who has done his job well.
	As regards psychology, QCA has carried out investigations into complaints from head teachers about the distribution of grades for LCR in psychology, English Literature and history. He found that in each of the three subjects the distribution of course work grades was similar to the examination modules. The QCA did conclude that the course work in these subjects had not been graded more severely. Mike Tomlinson also looked at this matter and found no evidence of systematic manipulation in the grading process in any unit.
	However, the regrading exercise did highlight some issues relating to the syllabus design and assessment and the marking schemes for LCR psychology. We have asked the QCA to look into this issue and to make sure that LCR takes effective action quickly, particularly in addressing these issues before the exams next year.
	My final point is on the issue of U grades. Mike Tomlinson said in his report that many of the case histories submitted to his inquiry appeared to have affected only individual candidates or groups of students within a school. He said that he was persuaded that such results could not be the result of systematic manipulation of the grading process since that would downgrade all of the students taking the relevant units and in extreme cases it would have led to up to 8 per cent of them receiving a U grade. He said that he had no evidence of that happening in any unit. He concluded that such cases are either a proper reflection of lower than expected performance by the candidate or inconsistent marking and/or course moderation. He has no clear evidence on which to reach a conclusion about the balance between the two explanations and therefore they are issues to be pursued within the QCA.

Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. I very much welcome the clear and helpful Tomlinson report. I can confirm what my noble friend said about the extensive consultation that Mike Tomlinson undertook during his investigation. I believe that the work which has been done to restore public confidence in the A-level system is valuable. I have no doubt at all that it will help to ensure that this year's problems can be avoided in future.
	I welcome and I am delighted at the very positive response of the department, as indicated by my noble friend the Minister. I welcome the proposals for clarification of standards and for enhancing the value of examining within the teaching profession.
	I should like to make a brief comment on one aspect to which my noble friend referred—higher education institutions and the importance of supporting changes that would build in greater certainty for students and security for institutions. I refer to the system for post-qualification applications to universities. If that had been an easy achievement we would have reached agreement already. It is not easy and there are all kinds of complications that we need to look at.
	Nonetheless, I know that universities, in association with other stakeholders at schools and colleges, will look at the Tomlinson recommendations with a great degree of interest and commitment.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks about the work of Mike Tomlinson. We believe that it will enhance A-levels and make sure that the cohort of students going through the system this year can have full confidence. The issue of post-qualification applications is an important but difficult one. I am delighted that Universities UK will be, and have been, involved in looking very carefully at this matter.
	The logic behind the position would be that students would know the results of their A-levels before they applied to university. But the implications for the way in which we design the university year and so forth are immense. This is one of the areas—there are many within the document—where we shall be consulting with colleagues in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Tomlinson report heralds an opportunity to discuss these issues and see where they might take us.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, the report is an example of expeditious and authoritative dealing with an unfortunate situation. I join with other noble Lords in welcoming it.
	I have a question involving the unpacking of the expression, "perceived pressure", which occurred in the earlier report, but there is too a general point to be made. The crisis has been waiting to happen. It arises from the annual ritual by which examination results are subjected to massive distrust. It is one thing to want to make sure, if someone is attempting a four-minute mile, that the stopwatch and tape measure are accurate; it is quite another to greet every announcement of a four-minute mile with a suspicion that the watch was wrong and the tape was not correct. We see every year those of predominantly middle-age and beyond, like myself, assuming that it was much better when we were young, that it was tougher, that the teaching had to be much better, and that the exams must have been more difficult. Does the Minister agree that we all need to encourage some self-restraint?
	There is a reluctance on the part of preceding generations to admire, affirm and welcome the achievements of the rising generation. I am staggered at what that generation is required to know, learn, study and achieve. Does the Minister agree that the language of perceived pressure must be elucidated to the general population so that we all understand that exam results have first to be received in a spirit of affirmation and welcome rather than be subjected to the annual ritual of suspicion that lies at the root of this year's crisis?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point: to admire, affirm and welcome the fantastic work that our students, their families and teachers do year upon year. I agree with him that we must be cautious and careful in our assumptions about the next generation of bright young people who are able to perform to their best. I quote again Mike Tomlinson:
	"The standard has not been lowered if an increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved teaching and hard work".
	Whatever we do with the system, I wholeheartedly endorse that our objective is to ensure that we celebrate success and recognise it for what it is.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, within the Statement is a suggestion that there was lack of guidance from the Department for Education and Skills. Will the Minister comment on the lack of guidance in association with the exams? Why were the exam boards unaware of what was expected of them?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the issues of lack of guidance and lack of expectations rest in the main on the relationship between QCA and the exam boards. That does not mean that the department does not have a role to play. The issue seems to be how detailed information and assumptions could be made about what was an appropriate level. The QCA and examining boards are now fully geared up to address that and to make sure that they have clear guidance and understanding of what is required. I believe that in the previous year that was not done to best effect. Mike Tomlinson has been clear about that issue and it has now been dealt with.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, would the introduction of PQA have major implications for the new universities and indeed in certain conditions be damaging to them?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure precisely to which implications my noble friend refers. I have no doubt that in any discussion about whether such a system was possible or feasible we would wish to take on board all concerns about the impact. There is no commitment on the Government's part to introduce PQA, but as Mike Tomlinson has raised the issue we will explore it thoroughly.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I too welcome Mr Tomlinson's report and pay tribute to him and his team for their work. I particularly welcome anything that will restore confidence in A-levels, with the caveat expressed by noble friend Lady Sharp. However, I am most concerned about the young people who have been let down this year.
	Despite Mr Tomlinson's best endeavours, there is still a great lack of confidence that all the young people who took their A-levels this year have the grades they deserve. One of the situations that brought forward the crisis was the difference between the AS-level results and the poorer quality A2 results of some students; in particular, the discrepancy between the coursework for the A2 exam and the number of students who achieved an A grade in their AS level the previous year.
	There is some concern about teachers' ability to understand what is required from the coursework. What is being done to address that? Unless it is addressed, there will be a continued lack of confidence in the A-level in coming years.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words about Mike Tomlinson's work. I thought noble Lords would be interested to know, in case they have not seen the latest press releases, that 16 students have negotiated a change from universities or colleges where they had originally been accepted. That is the latest information we have.
	In addition, 12 students will start at a new institution in autumn 2003. The noble Baroness raises an important point about communication. It is well covered in Mike Tomlinson's report. To save me reading out all of it, I refer her to paragraphs 74, 75 and 76 where he discusses misunderstandings, quality of communication and feedback—the important points to which the noble Baroness referred. They have been picked up in both the first and second reports.
	Mike Tomlinson is saying that these problems are separate from the original allegations and therefore the terms of reference but that they need to be dealt with thoroughly. One of the threads running through everything he has said, including at his press conference, is that communication is fundamental. He has kindly agreed to oversee this year's work and communication will be fundamental to the programme's success. He will be keen to watch over it, as indeed will the department.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blatch asked specific questions about the dismissal of Sir William Stubbs. The Minister made no reference to them. Will she do so now?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I realised that I had not responded as I sat down. I have nothing to add to the comments I made before. My right honourable friend the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills—I am not sure how to address her formally in your Lordships' House—made it clear that it was her view, in the light of all the issues presented to her, that the QCA should have new leadership. On that basis she sacked Sir William Stubbs.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, if I understood the Statement correctly, we are to have a QCA which will ensure the quality and consistency of examinations, and nothing else. That seems a thoroughly good step forward. The Minister knows that I have an interest to declare as editor of The Good Schools Guide. I would therefore see great benefit to parents in having examination results in which we can all believe carrying on from year to year.
	Would the new structure also promise great benefit in allowing the examination boards to innovate much more than they have done to date? The physics syllabus has not changed since I took it 30 years ago; it is just as boring now as it was then. Many other subjects could do with a great deal of innovation. We could do with a history syllabus that had a great deal more breadth and interest to it than some of those currently on offer. If we concentrated on this business of quality and innovation, we could provide an opportunity for such courses to be developed.
	Will the noble Baroness also ask her colleagues to ensure that they take this opportunity to do away with some of the old anomalies affecting various examinations at GCSE and A-level? Subjects such as French, for example, have consistently been more difficult—about one grade more difficult—than classical civilisation. As she will know from the department's own statistics, such anomalies appear consistently and go back to when we finished with norm referencing. If we are having a thorough look at the relative difficulties of examinations as between boards, could we not do the same with the difficulties as between subjects?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, that point goes slightly wider than the remit of this Statement. However, I recall with great pleasure, during our consideration of the Education Bill, some very interesting debates with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the relative merits of science, history and other subjects. I recognise the issue for the QCA about ensuring that it has a very clear role. As I said, we support what Mike Tomlinson said, and we are working with the QCA to achieve that. We also have great confidence that we can achieve it. I am happy to take the noble Lord's comments back to the department. However, questions such as how best to teach science are fundamental to our consideration of the curriculum for the 14 to 19 strategy. I hope that he will bear with us until we have completed those deliberations. Nevertheless, I shall feed in his comments.

Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [HL]

Second Reading debate resumed.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it is good to get back to speaking about rubbish.
	Although the Bill deals with a devolved matter, it extends also to Scotland. I am content with the Sewel motion process in this particular case as the Bill implements an EU directive and there is no opportunity for what the EU would call "sub-national variation". Although the word sub-national is not, as noble Lords will recognise, appropriate to Scotland, it is the necessary EU constitutional speak.
	The Bill raises a UK constitutional issue in relation to Scotland regarding the use of the four-year derogation. The Scotland Act requires the Scottish Parliament to implement EU legislation without derogation. We therefore need to have a greater understanding of how this aspect of the Bill will work. The situation is not impossible, however, as the Bill is pretty much a skeleton in how it will affect Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament will develop all the necessary secondary legislation to shape the Scottish response to the directive.
	On reflection, this may well prove a textbook example of the sensible use of Sewel motions. The risk in the Sewel motion procedure is that we could lose all chance of a specifically Scottish approach, for this Parliament does only UK-wide solutions. I do not believe that that concern applies here.
	Is there a need for this Bill in Scotland and the United Kingdom beyond the blind implementation of an EU directive? I believe that there is. The handling of waste is pretty crude, with far too much of it going unnecessarily to landfill. In the 1960s, in Clackmannanshire—my historic stamping ground—the county council acquired the latest European technology from Denmark, an incinerator, and bought land from the Mar and Kellie estate as the adjacent landfill site. At that time, the site had a long-term future because both inert material such as rubble which was not incinerated and ash went to landfill. By 1990, environmental measures required closure of the incinerator; and the amount of rubbish increased so dramatically—I believe it increased 15-fold—that the Forthbank tip was filled and had to be closed the following year.
	In future, Clackmannanshire—the Wee County—will drive its rubbish to landfill sites in other local authority areas. Perversely, this new operational approach will cost us less money. I have the option of buying back the landfill area which I mentioned, but, faced with 100 years of environmental monitoring, I doubt that I shall be taking it up.
	The Bill is both inevitable and modest—probably too modest—and it may not set a sufficient philosophy. Clause 17(3) needs to be sharpened so that the citizen in Scotland can be informed about the more desirable and purposeful options. Although the issue of energy recovery such as the use of waste wood for heating is very close to my heart, even I recognise that some discarded wood can be reused as wood rather than as domestic heating fuel. Citizens would find it more useful to see a hierarchy of waste management in the Bill, both for their own guidance and so that they could evaluate the efforts of their own local authorities.
	When I was living in Edinburgh, for my first job, the Edinburgh Corporation supplied householders with ash buckets, expecting people to use the living room fire to reduce dramatically the volume of domestic rubbish. Nowadays, when it is unusual to find a working flue in a house, the volume of household rubbish has increased dramatically.
	I conclude with a few observations. First, I could weep when I visit the Forthbank tip or any other rubbish site. I see reusable items in the skips. I would be charged with theft if I attempted to take items out of those skips. This situation is absurd, especially in the context of this Bill. Councils should allow a free exchange of reusable waste. On this matter, I feel an amendment coming on.
	Secondly, some Scottish local authorities have further to go than others. I am most impressed by the organisation of the Longman skip site in Inverness. The Highland Council has a good regime for sorting the rubbish which citizens bring in. Even there, however, exchange is not allowed. By contrast, at the Forthbank site, Clackmannanshire has minimal sorting, and what sorting there is operates on a voluntary basis.
	Thirdly, the Bill offers no solution to the increase in fly-tipping and the dumping of cars. Inevitably, as a landowner on the urban fringe, I have to deal with plenty of fly-tipping and an increasing number of burnt-out cars. I acknowledge that Clackmannanshire Council has helped me with the latter issue. It also helps with fly-tipped food and restaurant waste.
	Locally, it costs the owner £40 to have his car towed away to the scrap yard and £30 at the scrap yard gate. Much of the fly-tipping comes from small firms dodging the landfill tax. The proposals to increase that tax, eventually to £35 per tonne, will have a significant effect on the countryside around urban areas, by filling it with rubbish. That is not the Government's fault, but the citizen's fault.
	Fourthly, will the United Kingdom Government keep an eye on future EU environmental directives? I do not believe that we have coped at all well with the fridges and freezers directive, and there are more such directives on cars, tyres and electrical waste just over the legislative horizon.
	I finish with a question on Part 2. When the participants first voluntarily signed up to the emissions trading scheme, were they fully aware that the scheme would soon become statutory? Have they been hoodwinked?
	I look forward to the Committee stage. The Bill must be effective out in the community. Outcomes are all important and the only real test.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I start by thanking the powers-that-be for providing a new Speakers' List and rescuing me from my somewhat transvestite description on earlier print-outs of the list.
	I want to confine my remarks to the waste aspects of the Bill and in particular to welcome the just published PM's Strategy Unit report calling for a far greater focus on waste reduction and considerably more recycling—I believe that it recommends a recycling target of 52 per cent, up from the current 11 per cent, one of the lowest in Europe—of the waste that remains.
	There have been valiant efforts over a number of years to encourage voluntary action by industry, indeed, by all of us contributing to our growing waste mountain. Certainly that has resulted in some success. But it has become increasingly clear that much more than voluntary action is needed if we are even to get close to the EU directive's agreed targets.
	I should perhaps begin by declaring an interest as the chairman of the British Oxygen Company's Foundation for the Environment. This was set up 12 years ago by BOC with an initial budget of £1 million and the promise of 0.5 per cent of its annual UK pre-tax profits. The foundation's aim was to support financially innovative, action-based research and demonstration projects (preferably in "niche", unresearched areas) and, where possible, to find others with the necessary expertise, such as the Environment Agency, as funding partners. Successful projects were required to produce a report on what had been achieved—a best practice guide, if you like—for dissemination. So far the foundation has supported 122 and completed 91 such projects. The total grants raised for those projects amount to £13 million with the foundation's contribution being £3.5 million.
	One of the earliest gaps we identified for attention and support was waste minimisation. That was well before the government of the day had begun to realise its importance for the environmental agenda. Together with the Centre for Exploitation of Science and Technology (CEST), the Aire and Calder project, named after those two rivers, was set up whereby consultants worked with a range of industrial and commercial companies whose waste was contaminating those two rivers. Shortly after that was under way a second project for companies, Catalyst, followed in Merseyside which covered air and land pollution as well as water.
	Those two projects provided clear pointers for the future for they made it very plain that companies had little, if any, idea either of just how much waste they produced or of the cost of its disposal to landfill sites. Still less did they have much idea of their waste's potential value for re-use or recycling, or of how much their waste could be reduced or in some cases completely eliminated from production processes. "Bottom-line" savings which resulted, as well as environmental gains, were considerable. Eleven companies involved in the first project made savings of over £2 million during the first 18 months. I recount a small anecdote that made me laugh. One company found that a hosepipe which had been left on was not needed at all. Turning it off saved that organisation no less than £2,000 a year.
	Following the success of those projects the BOCF with other partners, funded a range of waste minimisation clubs by area and also by industry. We turned next to supporting projects alerting whole industries, for example farming, and public services such as the NHS. Their sheer volume of waste showed the greatest potential for minimisation and recycling. Understandably, by far the most difficult group to influence were the small and medium-sized enterprises—other noble Lords have mentioned that—but recently there has been some success there too. In all, I am proud of the fact that BOCF has helped to fund no fewer than 46 waste minimisation projects.
	I mention all this because despite the considerable efforts by government and some leading companies in the waste industry, and, indeed, by bodies such as Valpak representing the whole packaging industry, there clearly is not anything like enough action under way to meet our required targets, whether current, intermediate or, indeed, much longer term.
	So what needs to be done and how far will the legislation and the ideas contained in the Strategy Unit's report be useful? The Government's Strategy Unit's report points to the relatively small percentage of their profits that companies spend for their waste to be disposed of. The "polluter pays" principle—in use for years now in the United States—must surely, I should have thought, by now be firmly embedded in UK legislation, especially for manufacturers of white and brown goods and cars. The rightly increasing cost of landfill space, along with much stricter limits on the materials that can be landfilled, will, no doubt, help to concentrate producers' minds. Hopefully, too, we shall see more research done leading to cleaner, sustainable technologies in manufacturing processes.
	There is, too, much scope for refurbishing and recycling household appliances. I remember how, as a director of Kingfisher plc, I was greatly impressed by the actions of Darty, a leading French company, which had just become part of the Comet (white goods) wing of Kingfisher. As part of its social responsibility programme Darty had for some years trained unemployed people to clear the dangerous gases from refrigerators and generally refurbish them. The finished products were sold to those unable to afford new appliances.
	And we have only to think back a few months to the impact of our discarded fridges mountain mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the huge financial and manpower burden that that and other forms of dumping have heaped on local authorities, to realise that penalties for those offences need to be made very much tougher.
	I turn to the role of local government, which, incidentally, has had a pretty bad role in all this. There have been few incentives for them to play a fuller part. Universal kerbside collections mentioned in the Bill would certainly be an incentive for citizens to hand over their more recyclable waste products. Composting, too, whether within individual homes or collectively organised by local authorities, is still very much in its infancy in the UK and could make a substantial contribution to waste minimisation. However, would there not be considerable problems to be overcome with multi-occupancy premises if, under their new powers, local authorities decided to charge or otherwise "incentivise" each household unit according to the amount of waste produced?
	Waste, we are told, increases with affluence. Our own waste increases, apparently, by 3 per cent a year despite current efforts to contain and reduce it. Changes in lifestyle, too, have meant changes in packaging techniques. Takeaway food is a good example. Bulky packaging keeps the food warm but, alas, it is all too often disposed of by those who eat, as it were, "on the hoof", by throwing it in the street or into other people's gardens. The "polluter pays" principle should surely come into play here for both manufacturer and the anti-social customer.
	I turn now to my last rather different point. Are we sure that the different components that make up our household waste pay the appropriate overall financial contribution to the collection and reprocessing processes? National newspapers are an interesting case here on which it would be instructive to have the Minister's views. Noble Lords must have noticed that these have grown considerably in bulk over recent years. We take two Sunday national newspapers at home and over two consecutive Sundays—not counting unwanted drop-out adverts but including their attached "own label" magazines—they totalled one week over 600 pages and over 700 the next. That is 30,000 pages a year for Sunday newspapers alone from one household. Of that 30,000, at least 25,000 probably find their way straight into the wastepaper basket.
	A substantial amount of newsprint is, of course, not only recyclable but re-recyclable. As newspapers form 7 per cent of all household waste, is the industry paying enough, not only for collection but for the electricity used in the necessary recycling and, ultimately, for disposal, which will be done, most probably, by greenhouse gas-producing incineration? I can understand the incentive—not least the advertising revenue that it produces—for our newspaper industry to continue to increase the size of their papers. However, is there enough of a "polluter pays" disincentive in the environmental charges and other taxes levied?
	There is also the important contribution from individual citizens that we have, so far, failed fully to harness. We know from MORI polling that there is considerable willingness on the part of the public to become more involved. Many of the most successful projects that BOCF has backed involved the whole community, coupling expertise with voluntary effort. Children make especially good ambassadors, once their interest is gained. One hopes that the new subject of citizenship in the school curriculum will put considerable emphasis on our responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations, as well as our own.
	Finally, I come even closer to home. In your Lordships' House, should not we educate ourselves in the same way? We should think of the reams of paper that your Lordships consume every day. Should not we also minimise our waste?

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I must say how much I welcome the Bill. I must also apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for not being here at the beginning of her speech. I shall make only a few remarks, mostly in support of the Bill.
	For a time, when I first joined your Lordships' House, I had the privilege of serving on one of the Select Committees concerned with environmental issues. During that time, we considered the performance of the UK Government in carrying out the waste framework directive, with particular regard to waste incineration. I was on a rapid learning curve about emissions and waste incineration. Although we were primarily concerned with incinerations and emissions, we were operating within the context of the UK's waste management strategy. It will not surprise your Lordships to hear that we found that the UK Government had a lot of ground to make up.
	I was struck by the enormity of the problem that the Bill seeks to address. The UK produces nearly half a billion tonnes of waste each year, which is half a tonne per household. Every week, we could fill Wembley stadium—or, at least, we could if it had not been knocked down. We recycle less than any other European Union country, as noble Lords have mentioned. It is a huge problem. I echo what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote: the problem should not be addressed just by legislation. It is also a question of culture and personal conduct. In 1997, we recycled 7 per cent of our waste; five years later, the figure is up to 12 per cent. Even with my poor maths, I can see that that works out at about 1 per cent a year. Although welcome, that increase is not nearly enough, so I welcome the targets outlined by my noble friend the Minister in his speech.
	To stem waste growth, there must be a change in everyone's behaviour. A MORI poll—probably the same one as that to which the noble Baroness referred—showed that, unprompted, only 7 per cent of households named waste as an important environmental issue. I welcome the recent report published by the Prime Minister's strategy unit about municipal waste, which recommends a package of reforms. Although all those recommendations must be considered over time, it seems that the Bill is part of the drive to make progress in dealing with this huge problem.
	I must refer to the performance of local authorities. In many ways, it is at the heart of whether the first part of the Bill will succeed. The performance of our local authorities is uneven. We are talking of recycling performance that ranges from 1 per cent to 42 per cent. That is a huge difference. The setting of targets is important. How local authorities fulfil the targets is up to them. In many ways, the Bill will, indirectly, have a significant impact on the figures. A reduction in landfill means that local authorities must consider more systemically the use of recycling, incineration and other measures to meet the targets.
	There are initiatives such as WRAP—the Waste Recycling Action Programme. Its budget has been increased, and, in the spending reviews in 2000 and 2002, increased provision was made available to local authorities for environmental protective and cultural services, including waste. The initiatives are there, as are some of the resources, although probably not enough. The Bill will play an important part in setting the targets that local authorities must meet.
	Finally, I refer briefly to the UK's emissions trading scheme. My noble friend has a record of working on and promoting that issue. The fact that we are where we are, with the Bill, is a testament to that record of work. The UK emissions trading scheme is the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme. It is a voluntary scheme, which, as noble Lords will know, was launched in April 2002. It aims to deliver cost-effective emission reductions as a move towards meeting our international obligations and domestic targets and to provide a learning-by-doing experience of trading greenhouse gas emissions. Not only are we doing things that will improve the emissions situation in this country, but we are setting targets and aspirations for many people in the world to follow.
	The Bill sets important targets. It is not prescriptive, and I look forward to working on it in Committee.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon, I welcome the thrust of the Bill and the intentions that lie behind it. I shall concentrate on the law of unintended consequences and matters to which it is wise to pay heed, when legislating.
	As we heard, Part 1 of the Bill establishes the framework for local authorities to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill through tradable landfill allowances. However, uppermost in our mind must be the truth that, if a restriction is placed on the legal method of disposing of waste, it must, without any doubt, create an incentive for illegal dumping. We must plan ahead at this stage, when we have the opportunity to frame the legislation, for how we will cope with that.
	The problem of fly-tipping—illegal dumping—is significant and growing. Yet, it appears that it is not taken sufficiently seriously by the Government or their Environment Agency. In looking at the likely side-effects of the Bill, we must review what has happened since the introduction of the landfill tax. In its report on fly- tipping, the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs commented as follows:
	"We are dismayed that this very serious environmental problem should have been effectively ignored for so long. The possibility that the Landfill Tax would encourage fly-tipping was a major concern for environmental groups, local government and the public from the time before its introduction in October 1996. Regardless of the concerns and of our observations and recommendations on the subject in two subsequent reports, the Government and the Environment Agency have failed to take the necessary action to prevent the illegal dumping of waste".
	That is a damning indictment, to which we should pay attention as we consider the Bill. In creating a further strict framework to reduce biodegradable landfill deposits, the Bill will, inevitably, exacerbate the problem. I am with the Government, however, in saying that we should address this issue.
	The Government's response to the Select Committee stated that they had put in place strict controls to ensure that waste is disposed of safety. Furthermore, they had made it clear that,
	"it expects the Environment Agency to pursue a vigorous policy of prosecuting, where it has the evidence, anyone who illegally disposes of waste. The committee's assertions that the Government has failed to take action and effectively ignored the problem of illegal waste disposal are not supported by the facts".
	In the circumstances, that statement is bordering on the complacent, particularly in view of the fact that, in a Written Answer in another place on 13th June 2002, Mr Meacher stated that the total number of prosecutions for the unlawful deposit of waste in the whole country was only 264.
	It is widely acknowledged that there is a lack of national information about this important issue. Anyone who drives round the country or who lives in the country, particularly on the edges of cities, will see illegal dumps in lay-bys, woods, lanes, alleys, and indeed in any other quiet place.
	I will return to the question of prosecutions in a moment but, before doing so, it is important to look at the central issue of the effect that the landfill tax has had on illegal dumping. I believe that in this area the Government are, in a sense, in denial. In paragraph 59 of their response to the committee they say,
	"The committee's assertion that the landfill tax has encouraged the fly-tipping of waste is not supported by the available evidence. For example, the Tidy Britain Group's most recent report into the effects of the Landfill Tax on fly-tipping confirms that the type of waste most frequently tipped is household waste".
	They go on to say that householders are not directly affected by the landfill tax. Quite true, but they ignore the effect, since the tax was introduced, of commercial and builders' material being tipped.
	The Government's denial of this problem appears to be directly contradicted by statements on the Environment Agency's website. I quote from one of the statements, dated 21st August this year, that,
	"the fly-tipping of waste is a significant problem and is thought to be on the increase. Fly-tipped rubbish is a threat to the environment and health and safety".
	Furthermore, it says:
	"Nearly half of local authorities surveyed think that fly-tipping is a significant or major problem. About 60 per cent of local authorities thought that levels of fly-tipping had increased since the introduction of the landfill tax".
	The agency went on to list the landfill tax as one of the direct causes of this problem. Unless the Government accept that this is a consequence of putting constraints on access to the legal methods of disposal of waste, it will be difficult for them to get a grip on this proposed new framework for implementation of targets—with which we all agree—to reduce biodegradable landfill.
	There has been very little serious research work done on this subject but I would commend to the House a detailed report produced by Maidstone Borough Council. Its opening proposition was that there has been an exponential increase in the amount of tipping in the borough, at county level and indeed nationally. In Maidstone in 2001 there were more than 1,500 incidents of fly-tipping, compared with fewer than 500 in 1997. Furthermore, it expected another increase of 50 per cent in 2002.
	Angela Howard, the regional director of EnCams—I believe on behalf of the Tidy Britain Group—told the research committee that there were a number of reasons for increases in the incidence of tipping, the main one being the introduction of the landfill tax.
	Let us look again at prosecutions. The Maidstone report said that,
	"one of the problems with fly-tipping is that there is very little likelihood of the perpetrators being caught and prosecuted".
	It concluded:
	""At the end of the day, the only thing that will prevent people from fly-tipping is if they feel that there is a likelihood that they will be caught. Sadly, this is not the case at the present time".
	Perhaps I may illustrate the problem with a brief anecdote. I was staying at a house in the Home Counties owned by a member of my family. They live down a long and quiet lane through some woods. We awoke one morning to find that builders' rubble had been tipped over an area of about 150 yards. Clearly a van had opened its doors, driven uphill, and the detritus left on the ground. Frustrated by previous attempts to get the authorities to take action on this, I turned—having watched far too many detective programmes on the television—to doing some sleuthing of my own. I found among the rubble a builder's note that was a shopping list of supplies—guttering materials to be bought from a builders' merchant. It also had the addresses of two houses. I therefore hopped in my motorcar, found out where they were, drove round and interviewed the householders. They said yes, indeed, they had had work done recently, as had their neighbours, by a firm which had come to repair their guttering and they confirmed the type of materials that had been used.
	I submitted pictures, the written information and notes of my interview with the householder to the local authority, which was extremely interested because it has to pick up the bill for removing such materials. I pay tribute to the very efficient work that Wokingham District Council does in removing the rubbish. It said that unfortunately the Environment Agency would not prosecute unless someone actually saw the offence being committed. Is that really the case? I would like some guidance on that from the Minister. If it is the case, given that a great deal of this tipping occurs at night, the chance of achieving any successful prosecutions is extremely slim indeed.
	As it happens, there was another occasion when there was dumping in the same place. The sleuth went out and rifled through the rubbish again, and found a further name and address. On its submission to the local authority, it said yes, it knew the name and address and, lo and behold, it was the person who ran the building firm about which I had found evidence before. I understand that the local authority gave the information to the Environment Agency, which still declined to prosecute. If this is what we face, how can we get on top of the situation?
	Surely, in dealing with the restriction on the implementation of targets, we are looking at only one side of the problem, although an important side? Demand for landfill reflects the supply of goods which will become rubbish and the lack of alternatives for their disposal. Limiting access to landfill is one tool. However, it can be meaningful only if used in conjunction with national and international strategies to reduce waste, particularly with regard to the free movement of goods, and to encourage recycling, and if the authority responsible for ensuring that the whole system is not bypassed by illegal dumping—the Environment Agency in this case—is put under much greater pressure by the Government to deliver more effective enforcement than is currently the case. Unless the Government accept that the Environment Agency has not coped effectively with the side effects of the landfill tax, they will be creating a major problem when access to landfill for household waste is not constrained.
	Perhaps I may conclude by looking at how this will work in practice. I would certainly appreciate guidance from the Minister on this point. What will happen if a local authority simply cannot persuade all parties to reduce waste? Will it attempt to limit the waste output of individual households? How will it do that? If it does do that, it must be accepted that this will create a strong incentive for people to dump this rubbish illegally. The Government must be prepared to deal with that.
	The Bill is clearly an important step forward, but we do require some assurances from the Government that the practical framework is in place and that the Environment Agency is ready for what will be the likely consequence.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, one advantage of speaking last from the Back Benches in a debate—the place usually reserved by the usual channels for rebels and expellees—is that everything you want to say has probably already been said. All one can do, therefore, is to support and perhaps elaborate on what has already been said.
	I want only to deal with the waste aspects of this Bill. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the Bill does not include many things which should be included in it, which need to be dealt with and which, indeed, have needed to be dealt with over a very long period of time. Now we are almost in the position of having to take an emergency decision on this problem. Apparently it has arisen because of a European directive. Why on earth we have to wait for the European Community to scrabble about in our waste tips and in the dustbins of individuals, I simply do not know. This matter should have been dealt with decades ago because it has been known for a long time that our landfill sites would become full in the not-too-distant future.
	So far as I can see, the Bill does not contain any provisions to help local authorities to deal with this enormous problem. Local authorities' finances are so constrained that they simply cannot deal with it on their own. They need a good deal of government support if they are to build recycling plants and so on. So far as I can see, they are not receiving such help. The support needs to be specific and directly applicable to the problem. Local authorities cannot deal with it themselves because they do not have sufficient money. They are already finding it necessary to increase council taxes by three or four times the rate of inflation. Therefore, they are not able to deal with the problem themselves. It is a job that the Government should be dealing with and one with which they should have dealt a long time ago. However, the Bill is now before us.
	As I said, ratepayers, or council tax payers—that is the problem with having been a local authority leader many years ago; one cannot get out of the habit of describing council tax payers as ratepayers—are already under great pressure. But it seems that they will now be presented with another bill to enable local authorities to deal with the consequences of the Bill which is before us. We are hearing about individuals being charged by the bag of rubbish in addition to the charges already levied on them through the council tax for a service that they should, but apparently will not, receive. We have heard about the danger of fly-tipping. If people are charged by the bag, no doubt that will be a great incentive for them to take out their rubbish at night and dump it in forests and fields. Such a situation must be avoided at all costs.
	I want to stress a point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, during debate on the gracious Speech and, indeed, by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, this afternoon. It is not the ordinary people—the householders—who are at fault. It is not they who wilfully generate the excess waste which goes into landfill sites. It is the packaging industry, the manufacturers, food processors and retailers and others who shower them with junk mail.
	The newspaper and magazine industry wastes millions of trees churning out free newspapers and weekend supplements to provide work for hack journalists and writers. That industry causes the problem. Householders, who have to cope with the amount of waste, are not the polluters. It is not they who should pay. They are the victims in this crisis of excessive waste and in this era of throwaway products. It is to the generators of this avalanche of material that pleas for restraint should be made. Such pleas should not be made to householders, who are the unwilling recipients of the torrent of unwanted material which they cannot return to those who impose it upon them.
	A friend of mine, who is 77 years of age, recently had a rather bulky piece of furniture delivered to her house. In my day, a bulky piece of furniture would normally be placed in a blanket. The delivery men would bring the item into the house, put it in place and then take the blanket away and use it again. But that does not happen now. My friend's piece of furniture was packed with piles of polythene, cardboard and God knows what else. The delivery men dumped the package on the floor and said, "Goodbye, madam". She said, "Just a minute. Aren't you going to unpack this?" They protested but unpacked it grudgingly. The whole room was covered in packaging. She asked, "Aren't you going to take it away?" "Oh no", they said, "that's not our job". Therefore, this lady, who is 77 and has arthritis in her hands, was left with a mountain of packaging simply as a result of having a piece of furniture delivered.
	That is the type of problem which we must try to deal with and to which we should pay attention. It is an area that should be explored with manufacturers and retailers in an attempt to place a restraint on the masses of paper which are doled out. Again, I refer to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. We always seem to agree these days; I believe that we agreed on the subject of the BBC in a recent debate. As the noble Baroness said, in this place and throughout Whitehall, the, in most cases, unnecessary, mountains of paper that are churned out cause part of the problem. Therefore, the Government themselves should clamp down on the amount of waste produced.
	I also want to mention the problem caused by free newspapers. As though we did not have enough of them, Express Newspapers are to produce yet another free newspaper for London. Noble Lords can imagine what that will do to householders who have one delivered, regardless of whether or not they want it. Therefore, there are great problems.
	It seems that in one respect we are tackling the problem from the wrong end—that is, we are tackling it from the disposal instead of the creation end. Therefore, I hope that the Government will do a great deal to stop the creation of the mountain of paper that afflicts us every day, week in, week out, month in, month out, year in, year out, and decade in and decade out.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate with a number of extremely valuable contributions. Members of your Lordships' House seem to have been discussing these matters for a long time. I believe that it was Lord Palmerston who said that dirt is not dirt; it is simply matter in the wrong place. Whether Palmerston had ever heard of the word "recycling", I do not know, but that seems to be the issue at the heart of our discussions.
	I thank my noble friend Lord Livsey of Talgarth for setting out, in part, the position of the Liberal Democrats in relation to the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, who referred to "household flues". I believe that, in our part of the world, they are known as "chimneys". Perhaps he can confirm that following the debate. There were a number of excellent contributions, notably that of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, whom I had never thought of previously as being a cross-dresser. One learns many things in this House.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, raised the question of charges. I take this opportunity to say that we have grave reservations about imposing on householders extra charges related to the volume of refuse they produce. In principle that sounds right, but in practice it seems to be the wrong point in the chain to levy extra charges. The implications for extra fly-tipping—so ably set out by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen—and illegal dumping and so on, are huge. Certainly, in our part of the world the backyards of derelict houses are the first point of call or, if the amount is too big, it is dumped on the moors. So we have considerable reservations about that matter. We shall want to return to it in Committee.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford—once the Minister had introduced the Bill—started off by expressing disappointment. We share that disappointment. Part 1 is called a "waste" Bill. In many ways it is a waste of opportunity Bill. We would have much preferred to see a Bill which set out a comprehensive waste strategy. This is very much a bits and pieces Bill—taking a bit here and a bit there. I suppose that if it had been a comprehensive waste strategy it might not have started its passage in this House. Nevertheless, it might have been a more useful Bill.
	I am fascinated by the formula in Clause 3(2). It is disappointing that no-one has discussed it in detail, taken it apart and explained what it means. I look forward immensely to discussing it and the amendments that may be moved to it in Committee. It would help enormously if, before the Committee stage, the Minister could provide some workings by way of example to show how the formula will work in practice and what it means. That might save a great deal of confusion and thoroughly ignorant discussion by many non-mathematicians.
	My next point is in relation to the huge quantity of the Bill that will rely on regulations and secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, read out the relevant part of the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It is clear that a main reason for so many regulations is that implementation of the principles in the Bill will be left to the jurisdictions in the different parts of the United Kingdom or, at least, Scotland, Wales and England. In the case of England, that is the Secretary of State.
	It is a very good example of the kind of pseudo-federalism we now have in this country that Scotland has a substantially devolved administration, which could almost be described as federal, Wales is a half-way house, and England is nowhere. There is a difference between the three places. For example, in Wales the National Assembly will be able to discuss the secondary legislation in detail and will be able to amend it in detail—or in considerably more than detail if it wishes. It is only in England where secondary legislation is now presented to this Parliament on a "take it or leave it" basis. That is not satisfactory. It is a constitutional matter that will have to be tackled.
	There is a great deal of secondary legislation consisting of one page just changing a price, a figure, a quantity, or so on. That is straightforward. But the kind of legislation clearly required from the Bill will be statutory instruments consisting of 70, 80 or 150 pages. It is not acceptable and satisfactory that they are presented to Parliament on a take it or leave it basis. We shall at least want to return to the matter and discuss it in Committee.
	There is a classic "shall" or "may" argument looming on the horizon in Clause 15. I refer to the question of public access to the registers which will be set up under Part 1 of the Bill, where it says "may". I think we shall be batting for "shall" in the classic argument there. I ask the Minister to look at that matter. It is freedom of information. It should be mandatory. It is more than just the normal argument we have on these things.
	A larger issue perhaps is the question of whether this country should be taking advantage of the four-year derogation on the landfill directive. Can we really not do all this work by 2016? Do we really have to wait until 2020? I ask rather teasingly how many Members of your Lordships' House will still be around in 2020 to see it—perhaps not many. So it is a long period of time. We are one of the richest countries, not only now but ever, in the world. If we cannot do jobs such as this in a reasonable period of time, then we should be ashamed of ourselves. We shall certainly want to look at that.
	On the theme of missed opportunities—the waste of opportunity Bill perhaps—there are a number of issues that we believe should be tackled as part of the Bill. One is the whole area of incineration. There is a risk that if landfill becomes more expensive and more difficult to use—and it is not just the illegal and the fly-tipping at a low level, which will take place—there will perhaps inevitably be more incentives for people to use incineration. It is our view that there should be a moratorium on new incinerating facilities and perhaps a system of allowances for incineration brought in. Those matters are integral to what is being attempted in the Bill; perhaps they should be tackled at the same time. There is nothing in the Bill about essential parts of a strategy to reduce landfill and particularly landfill biodegradable waste.
	I return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. It is all very well tackling the problem at the end, but the real problems are at the beginning of the cycle. Unless far more attention is paid to that, tackling the problems at the end will be very difficult and will create the kind of bottlenecks which have been talked about.
	We should like to see this country perhaps moving towards a real genuine zero waste strategy over a medium term—a reasonable period of time. It may be that zero waste is an unattainable dream, but, like many unattainable dreams, one can get quite close before one actually comes up against an impossible situation. As a party, we have put forward a 40-year strategy for waste. That sounds a long time. It is certainly beyond the life expectancy of most Members of your Lordships' House. But that is the kind of timescale which, if we are looking at fundamental issues, we could be examining.
	Waste minimisation should be fundamental to what we are talking about. We are not just dealing with the waste that is produced. If a large amount of waste being produced at the beginning of the cycle has to be dealt with, a zero waste strategy is not the whole answer. Recycling everything is not the whole answer if we are using too many resources already at the beginning of the cycle. Some of those matters may be appropriate for discussion in Committee; some may be too grand or major topics. But we shall certainly be putting forward some amendments.
	I was interested to hear my two noble friends who have spoken promising amendments on this and amendments on that. I am not sure whether they were threatening the Minister or me. We shall find out in the next week or two. We are considering whether it is possible to write a provision into the Bill to deal seriously with fly-tipping and illegal tipping. That may be inappropriate and may need to be done in other ways, but it is a major matter that should and, we hope, will be discussed.
	I look forward to the Minister's reply. Again, I compliment those Members who have taken part in the debate and made it such a good one. We look forward to some interesting days in Committee.

Lord Luke: My Lords, "Waste not, want not", is how I was brought up. In those days—quite apart from Lord Palmerston, I am sure that this is true—recycling was not an option. But surely that is where the future of waste management lies, not in vast quantities of mixed rubbish taken down the Thames in barges every day. It is hugely ironic that this great city, which owes its very existence to the river, should now use it to transport only rubbish.
	Details of targets, allowances trading and the various powers of the various bodies have been well discussed. My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said that we must do much better over the next few years or pay huge penalties to Europe. He is quite right. If we do not do much better over the next few years, we deserve to pay huge penalties to Europe.
	My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith asked a specific question, which I hope that the Minister will be able to answer: under what financial regime will the Bill work? What will be the cost of incineration as a general rule—alleviated as it may be, and is, by the saleable energy created by incineration? My noble friend also told us that transport costs of waste are high, so treatment centres and holes in the ground, if they are to be used, must be close to the producers of waste. My noble friend also mentioned something about nappies into wallpaper, but I shall not go into that.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, made a most interesting speech. My noble friend Lord Goschen emphasised the importance of considering beforehand the unintended consequences of any measures taken. Like many noble Lords, he mentioned how important it is to cope with fly-tipping, to which I shall shortly return.
	My main concern about the Bill concerns its strategy. It is fundamentally the same for each of the four countries. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, did not mention Northern Ireland—I could not fail to say that with my noble friend Lord Glentoran sitting next to me. In the words of the newly ennobled but very late Monsieur Dumas, it is a case of my comments being,
	"All for one, and one for all".
	First, the strategy relates to biodegradable waste. It is undoubtedly true that 63 per cent of 29 million tonnes is an awful lot of reusable, recyclable material going to landfill. It is also indisputable that the situation is unacceptable and must be corrected. However, I am greatly concerned at the implied quantity of inert material going to landfill—especially because, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, so much of it must be plastics. Why is there nothing in the strategy to impel the Secretary of State to set targets and draw up a strategy for reducing inert waste?
	Secondly, the strategy is to reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill, which implies that it will cover waste from all sources: municipal, commercial, industrial, hospital, and so on. Yet the first part of the Bill is concerned—it repeats this over and over again—with biodegradable municipal waste. The Local Government Association has pointed out that it has no authority over collection authorities. The landfill operator has a licence to carry on the trade and accepts waste from all sources. The LGA has also declared that it would not want landfill operators to lose out because of the Bill's operation. I am concerned that they may find themselves between a rock and a hard place, because there seems to have been no consideration of their position.
	The Secretary of State is required to consult representatives of industry, local government and the public. There is no mention of commerce or of other government departments such as defence and health. If biodegradable municipal waste is intended to encompass biodegradable waste from all sources, why does the Bill carry a separate definition for biodegradable waste? Will the Minister give examples of biodegradable waste that is not biodegradable municipal waste?
	The strategy separates biodegradable waste originating within the country from that entering from outside. It does not impose a duty to reduce the volume of biodegradable waste leaving the country. Despite the requirements on the relevant authorities to consult each other about the formulation of their strategies, the omission of such a duty may be a source of considerable friction in the days and years to come.
	My noble friend Lady Byford asked the Minister about the chapter on waste management in Wales. Devolution is not my strong point, but I also question the need to go into such detail about Wales in the Bill, when there appears to be no comparable provision for England. Presumably, the Secretary of State will have parallel powers to produce regulations for English local authorities. If so, is he likely to exercise them?
	How much research has been done by the department in countries such as Switzerland, Austria and Germany, whose municipal waste management is so much ahead of our own? In each of those three countries, about 50 per cent of their waste is recycled. Our comparable figure is 12 per cent. I understand that we have a target of 25 per cent by 2005. Does the Minister believe that that will be achieved?
	I have done some research into the situation in Germany. Each household has separate sacks for biodegradable waste, paper and cardboard, plastics and polystyrene and, finally, for anything that is unrecyclable. In Germany, the citizen is involved in that management. Some waste is collected free and some, especially unrecyclable waste, must be paid for.
	Mistakes in assignment—in other words, putting the wrong waste into particular sacks—are punished by a yellow card for the first offence: one does not receive a collection next week. If one carries on doing it wrong, one receives a red card. One must then prove oneself to be a proper citizen before one receives any collection. We can imagine how pleasant that is, especially with biodegradable waste.
	It is expected that rubbish should be washed before assignment. I cannot see that happening here, but that is what they do. Also, in Germany, one is not allowed to keep bins sitting on the pavement in full sight; one must keep them out of sight. Perhaps that is not right for this country, but there are messages that could make a great deal of difference here if we tried to get ordinary citizens to co-operate. On that I draw a slight distinction between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. Quite apart from trying to assign less waste, we have to work hard at the other end as well. I am sure that if we do both we shall get somewhere.
	In certain local authorities in England I understand that some progress has been made. In the Test Valley in Hampshire there is a three-bin rubbish system: normal, compostable and recyclable. That sounds the right route. What are the Government doing to encourage that elsewhere?
	I have done. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I hope that he will be able to answer some of the many questions put during this excellent debate.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, this has been a very informed and informative debate and I thank all those who have participated in it. There have been expressions of disappointment with the Bill, followed by huge expectations of what a piece of legislation can do. The Bill deals with an important part of waste management. It does not seek to deal with a whole range of waste management. There are other instruments already on the statute book. A strategy was developed in 2000 for waste management. Last week, the strategy unit report made further proposals and we also had the Chancellor's commitments on the taxation side of landfill and related matters.
	Therefore, many of these measure are more broadly within waste strategy, including hierarchy, other local authority responsibilities, commercial responsibilities and so forth. In addition, part of the programme encourages households and individuals to take responsibility. Not all of that can rest on what is in some ways a modest Bill. However, it is a strong Bill in the sense that it will deliver the key target on municipal biodegradable waste and do so in a way that is a mixture of government targets and economic instruments.
	Therefore, it is partially a market system and partially what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to in passing as a "Soviet system". However, I believe that it is somewhat different from that. We need those targets. Although I am all for leaving local authorities to get on with it, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said earlier, the achievements are somewhat variable. Recycling achievements can vary from 1 per cent to 42 per cent and therefore targets must be imposed. How the local authorities meet those targets is up to them.
	The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, regretted that we are in this situation because we were forced to comply with an EU directive. I know his views on those matters, but he might agree with my view that thank God we did. Thank God the EU put pressure on us because our present system of dealing with waste is totally unsustainable. The timetable imposed, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, believes is too long, will be difficult for us to manage because of the decades during which we have simply relied on landfill for dealing with the bulk of both biodegradable and other waste. Therefore, a range of other measures has to be brought to bear, but the requirement on biodegradable municipal waste is very important.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised a number of specific questions. I shall do my best to reply to as many as I can. We are using other measures in delivering the overall waste targets. The noble Baroness asked whether the targets can be changed. The answer is yes, but the overall targets can be changed only by an agreement to the amendment to the directive. Therefore, we are maintaining the overall target unless the directive is changed. The only way that that can be changed is by the review that is taking place in 2014. Therefore, we are on an established course.
	The noble Baroness also mentioned transporting waste over long distances. We shall try to avoid that as far as possible and we can do so in part by the training system and in part by trying to ensure that local authorities and commercial operations meet the least-cost options for dealing with their waste.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and others, referred to packaging. That is being dealt with separately by the EU directive on packaging and packaging waste which is being implemented. It requires at least 50 per cent of packaging waste by weight to be recovered by 2001. Further obligations have come into force since then. In part, we have exceeded the target. However, the growth of packaging is a major problem and contributes to the growth of waste.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to catering waste and to the fact that it cannot now be recycled on farmland. That is the case and our consultations on amendments to the animal by-products order will allow for the composting of catering waste—something that I believe we all agree is vital. That will be dealt with through that route, rather than in this Bill.
	It is also true that under packaging regulations any firm with a turnover of more than £2 million in its last accounts and handling more than 50 tonnes of packaging must be covered by the regulations. That also applies to the commercial side as well as to the local authority side. However, it does so through the packaging regulations rather than these provisions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others referred to incineration. That is only one up in the hierarchy from landfill provision. Nevertheless, in order to meet those targets there will have to be some scope for incineration. Modern incinerators are clean. However, there is a deep degree of "nimby-ism", which I am sure the Liberal Democrat Party spokesman did not slip into in his remarks. Incineration is not popular, but it will have to form part of the solution in terms of meeting those targets and be used appropriately to get rid of some of our waste—preferably transforming it into energy in the process. As the noble Lord, Lord Luke, said, that is often done in Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia.
	As regards the targets, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, drew our attention to what he regarded as an over-complicated formula in Clause 3. I thought that it was fairly simple. I have called a meeting of all Peers interested in the Bill for next week, when I shall give a lengthy seminar. The point is that there are several target years and at any point one has to remain on the trajectory. If the algebra is transferred into calculus, one should be able to work that out.
	I have already referred to the importance of the strategy unit report on the way forward. It is a complicated but cohesive publication with a lot of recommendations. We are setting up a ministerial group to look at the funding implications. It will report to my Secretary of State and to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and others referred to the problems of funding. Although we have allocated significant additional resources on waste both at governmental level and at local government level in the Spending Review 2002, charging and resource issues have to be faced.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister indicate how soon that consultation will take place? Will we be able to reflect on it before the Bill clears our House?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the totality of the strategy, the answer is no. If further funding implications arise for the delivery of this part of the strategy, clearly that may be touched on during the course of proceedings on the Bill. I do not think that the full assessment of the implications of the strategy unit report will be available before this House has considered the Bill.
	There were various comments on the commercial dimension of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in particular gave a number of interesting initiatives and examples of commercial operations that had seen the importance of the approach and delivered outcomes that also cut their costs and contributed to their profits. Before we broke for the Statement, my noble friend Lord Haskel conferred a welcome from the EIC and the benefit for poorly performing industries once they recognised the importance of dealing with the cost implications of their own waste management. Dealing with waste positively in a commercial sense should not necessarily be regarded as a negative; there are great positives for the bottom line in terms of dealing effectively with waste. I refer to waste minimisation and the optimum way in which to dispose of the remaining waste.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to aspects of consumer behaviour and related that to producer responsibility in various areas, one of the most interesting of which was newspapers. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also referred to that. The House may wish to know that we reached a voluntary agreement with the Newspaper Publishers Association—its members are not always the easiest people with whom to reach agreement—in April 2000 that we would increase the recycled content of newsprint. The first target has been exceeded. We set a target of 60 per cent for the end of last year but the figure was 63.5 per cent. That is a very positive story of co-operation between government and industry.
	The option of charging households for waste has been around for some time. There are problems with it; I note what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said about the Liberal Democrat position. It is also not our view that we should directly charge individuals for waste. However, there are incentive schemes, which are suggested in the Strategy Unit report, which we will examine. They might help to deliver the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred in terms of household differentiation of waste in this country, which is much less developed than in parts of the Continent. That has greatly helped those countries to secure a better recycling achievement than this country.
	The Bill involves various quasi-constitutional points. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the Scottish situation. This is even more an issue of subsidiarity in Scotland; I refer in particular to Clackmannanshire. I do not believe that it is appropriate to delve too deeply into that. As he rightly said, the Bill involves a benign use of the Sewel motion and provides the framework; after that, the Scottish will take their own decisions about how to deliver local authority allocations.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Luke, referred to the position with regard to Wales and asked why we needed Clause 2. That spelt out a particular position with regard to waste management strategies for local authorities in Wales. That is in this Bill because, as the noble Lord knows, the settlement in Wales does not provide for primary legislation in Wales and that approach would require primary legislation. After substantial discussions in Wales between the Welsh authorities and the Welsh local authorities, it was agreed that the requirements for waste management strategies should be part of the process. The situation is not precisely the same as that in England. In order to be able to do that in Wales, some primary legislation is required.
	Also on the Welsh front, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that the secondary legislation that would be appropriate for Wales under the Bill will be subject to appropriate consultation with the Welsh Assembly and will have to go through the relevant process there.
	Another issue on the waste side is illegal waste fly-tipping. I recognise that that is a major problem. It was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. It is important that the Environment Agency and local authorities have the powers and the ability to enforce in that area. The Strategy Unit's document also covers that and it has recommended more rigorous prosecution of fly- tipping offences. We need to consider that very carefully. Already, we are amending the Environmental Protection (Duty of Care) Regulations 1991 to help local authorities to do more to tackle the problem. Amending them will also help local authorities to pursue fly-tipping offences where they find evidence. My notes refer specifically to evidence that the noble Viscount was pursuing as a community activist in Wokingham and to a business's letter headed paper being connected with a fly-tipping incident. I hope that in future such evidence will be sufficient to lead to prosecution. He was referring to the Environment Agency but those powers relate mainly to the local authority. I will write to the noble Viscount if the situation regarding the Environment Agency is significantly different. We already have it in our sights to tackle that. If the process of regularising the disposal of waste on other fronts leads to illegal tipping, that part of the strategy would clearly need to be developed further.
	I accept that some of the increase in fly-tipping may reflect the landfill tax but the bulk of additional fly-tipping appears to involve household waste, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, accepted is not directly affected by the landfill tax. Measures to change the behaviour of households in disposing of their waste are also required.
	I turn briefly to the emissions trading part of the Bill, which was generally welcomed although there were a few queries about it. I thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for giving me credit in this area, but I am not sure whether it is entirely deserved. Bringing the market to operate in terms of meeting emissions targets is an important initiative in this country and it is now coming to fruition. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked whether the participants who voluntarily went into the scheme knew that there would be a compulsory underwriting of it. The answer is that that does not make the system mandatory; it means that the penalty—the sanction—for developing a voluntary system has a statutory base. That was understood from the word go when they entered it. They advocated that legislation was needed to ensure that one could apply those sanctions. The Bill does not make the UK emissions trading scheme mandatory but provides a statutory base for the sanctions for a voluntary scheme. The contracts under the scheme, freely negotiated by those who entered it, are binding. The contracts difference between participants and the Government refer to the difference and state that statutory penalties will be introduced as soon as Parliament allows; we are fulfilling our part of that contract.
	The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, asked about compatibility with developments in the EU in terms of trading directives. They are not directly related but they are not incompatible either. The UK scheme was designed well ahead of the EU scheme and there are some differences between what is currently being proposed in the EU. First, the scheme will be mandatory when it reaches the end of its development. Emissions from electricity generation will be included or allowed; the EU scheme will apply only to a restricted subset of sectors rather than the industry-wide or economy-wide scheme that we are proposing. We believe that the potential incompatibility is being ironed out and there should be no basic incompatibility between what eventually emerges from the EU and our scheme. Britain will therefore be leading in this regard. As I said earlier, the approach will bring great benefit in terms of our emissions targets and it will provide British industry and the City of London with great experience in dealing with a trading scheme well ahead of the rest of the world.
	Finally, I touch on the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Greaves, about the points in the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The first point involved the fact that this was a skeletal Bill. Both noble Lords will recognise that it is skeletal because it provides for the devolved functions and therefore does not contain as much detail as if it had been solely an English Bill.
	There are not a huge number of regulations under the Bill. No doubt when we come to discuss the clauses under which regulations are proposed we shall discuss the nature of the regulations at that point, but it should not be accepted that there will be a huge swathe of new regulations. The points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee related to the penalty provisions rather than any other powers under the Bill. As I said, I have no doubt that we shall debate those when we come to the appropriate clause in Committee.
	I look forward to Committee stage. I hope that noble Lords who have participated in the Second Reading will feature in the Committee stage debates. It is an important Bill. It may not be quite as ambitious as delivering the totality of the waste strategy—as some noble Lords requested it should—but it is a very important building block towards delivering an effective waste management strategy in this country, in fulfilling our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol and for meeting our emissions targets.
	The Bill does so in a way which allows the market to operate rather than, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested, by Soviet-style direction. Quite the opposite. It is a mixture of government initiative and the operation of the market. In that sense, I hope that the Bill will commend itself to all sides of the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Medical Act 1983 (Amendment) Order 2002

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the order before the House today will bring about major reform of the General Medical Council. In essence, these reforms have been designed to achieve three important objectives. First, to provide better protection and improved safeguards for the public; secondly, clearer and more straightforward procedures in relation to fitness to practice which are in the interests of both the medical profession and the public at large; and, finally, greater accountability and transparency around the working of the GMC itself.
	I pay tribute to the GMC for the work that it does and for its specific work on reforms. I particularly mention Sir Donald Irvine, the former President of the GMC, and his successor, Graeme Catto.
	The new GMC will be smaller and able to work more quickly in the public interest. It will have quicker and simpler procedures, particularly where a doctor's fitness to practise is in question. There will be far greater lay representation than before and, for the first time, the GMC will be able to link registration with performance through the introduction of revalidation for all doctors.
	Proposals for reform have been developed by the GMC itself following careful and widespread consultation with patients and the medical profession. There was overwhelming support for reform in response to the consultation on the draft order.
	The order makes a number of amendments to the Medical Act 1983 rather than replacing it altogether. We have tried to keep the drafting as simple as possible but the fact that we are amending the primary legislation in this way means that the order is inevitably a rather complex document.
	We said in the NHS Plan that, as a minimum, regulatory bodies must change so that they are smaller with much greater patient and public representation in their membership; have faster more transparent procedures; and develop meaningful accountability to the health service. The order represents a big step forward in meeting those needs.
	The order reduces the size of the General Council—or paves the way for such a reduction—from an unwieldy 104 to a maximum of 35. A smaller council will inevitably be required to work in different ways. For example, members of the new council will not have the same role in fitness-to-practice cases as their predecessors. Cases will be heard by panels made up of non-council members and will include both doctors and lay people. The effect of this, together with the opportunity for more non-council members to sit on working committees, will result in a welcome increase in the number of members of the public taking an active role.
	The new council will meet more frequently, and this will help the new GMC to respond more rapidly to change and to take forward business more effectively. Lay members currently form only 25 per cent of the members of the General Council. In future, they will make up no less than 40 per cent—14 out of 35.
	The links to Parliament are important and the GMC, as a statutory body, will continue to be accountable to Parliament. We have strengthened this link by ensuring that the council reports to Parliament, through the Privy Council, on an annual basis. The Act as revised by the order will now require that the report be laid before each House of Parliament. Like other regulatory bodies, the GMC will come under the remit of the new Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals. This new body will report to Parliament and so help us to hold regulators to account more effectively.
	Though detailed, the order does not go into every detail of the governance of the council. A great deal will be dealt with in secondary legislation and will be subject to scrutiny by both the Privy Council and Parliament. The first of these statutory instruments will be the General Medical Council (Constitution) Order. We have already published a draft of this order. The constitution order sets out the numbers of members, how they get selected and their terms of office, including that of the president. It also covers the termination of office for existing members and sets the quorum at 25. These orders will be subject to the negative procedure.
	The order places a new duty on the GMC to co-operate, as appropriate and where practicable, with other bodies concerned with the regulation of healthcare professionals. As new clinical roles develop in the health service it is vital that the GMC plays a full part in ensuring that professionals working closely with doctors, perhaps taking over some of the roles traditionally delivered by doctors, meet similarly high standards expected of doctors.
	In recognition of the new spirit of partnership with patients and the public, the order places a duty on the GMC to inform the public about its work.
	From a public protection point of view, the medical register is perhaps the most fundamental part of the GMC's work. Keeping the register will be at the centre of the new GMC's functions. The order clarifies the GMC's freedom to publish the medical register on the Internet and, at the same time, abolishes the requirement for the GMC to publish an annual register.
	But patients today want to know far more than whether a doctor is simply on the register. They want to know whether he or she is up to date with current practice. An important change that this order will bring is the introduction of a licence to practise. In future, only doctors who have a licence to practise will be able to treat patients and prescribe drugs. The licence may be withdrawn if doctors fail to maintain their fitness to practise or do not demonstrate, through the GMC's new validation procedures, that they are up to date and fit to practise.
	The introduction of revalidation for all doctors is therefore a key feature of the changes we are debating. In future, every practising doctor will have to submit evidence to the GMC, collected over a five-year period, that their practice is up to date and of sufficiently high standard. Provided that they meet those standards they will retain their licence to practise. Those doctors who choose not to take part or who do not meet the required standard will not be issued with a licence to practise.
	That process will be supported by the separate introduction of an appraisal system for all doctors working in the NHS. All NHS doctors will be discussing their practice with their employer or a recognised NHS appraiser on an annual basis.
	Revalidation will help all doctors to show that they are giving good medical care and will support them to develop and improve their practice. It will also enable doctors to identify and correct any weaknesses they may have. If concerns are raised about a doctor's fitness to practise during the revalidation process, he or she can be referred to the GMC's fitness-to-practise procedures. These procedures—for handling concerns about a doctor's conduct, performance or health—are perhaps the most prominent aspect of the GMC's work.
	I should stress that even though the number of complaints against doctors increases year on year, the vast majority of people receive excellent service from committed and caring professionals working to very high standards which the GMC helps to maintain. When things go wrong—as they inevitably do from time to time—it is important to have effective procedures in place for dealing with them.
	The role of the GMC is to make decisions on those cases where a problem is so serious that a doctor's registration is called into question. The new GMC will concentrate on the most serious cases, and on those where local action is unable to secure adequate public protection.
	It is in everyone's interest that procedures are fast, fair and efficient. The order provides for important changes to the GMC's fitness to practise procedures to ensure that they are just that, and that they maintain the right balance between the legitimate expectations of patients and the rights of individual doctors.
	In effect, these changes will mean simpler proceedings and rules, speedier processes, the more meaningful involvement of those who bring cases to the GMC's attention and keeping interested parties informed of progress.
	Streamlined fitness-to-practise procedures, together with the changes that we have made to the constitution and governance of the GMC and the introduction of revalidation for doctors fully meet the aims for modernised professional self-regulation. I believe that it is consistent with the changes that are being made with the other regulatory bodies. The new GMC will be more open, more accountable and more responsive to change than ever before.
	The GMC has undertaken a tremendous amount of work in engaging the profession and other stakeholders in determining the future of professionally led self-regulation for doctors. Events at Bristol and the publication of the Kennedy report gave this exercise an additional imperative and urgency. Again, I pay tribute to the GMC for its work in taking this agenda forward.
	The case for reform in this area has been debated extensively with stakeholders and has been widely accepted. The reforms before the House will ensure not only that the new GMC will be able to respond to the need for reform but that, crucially, it will be able to set the pace of reform. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [First Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.)

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the order. It is clear that it is basically non-contentious, and it has the support of the General Medical Council, which is itself the object of reform in the order. Indeed, it is fair to say, as the Minister has generously pointed out, that the GMC has been active in the development of the ideas behind the order. The GMC is keen to see these reforms progress.
	Let me make it clear that we on these Benches support the important principle underlying the order; namely, self-regulation. Control of regulatory processes has always been one of the hallmarks of a profession, and we are glad that the solution agreed between the Government and the GMC does not impair this fundamental rule.
	It would be tempting to stop here and say, "Thanks very much, all agreed". The Minister will know, however, that life is rarely that simple and I should like to address three aspects of the order.
	The first is the restructuring of the GMC. It will be a much smaller council—the number of members will be reduced from 104 to 35 and the proportion of lay members will be increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. All of that seems to be going in the right direction of travel. But I do question whether the journey has gone far enough. In particular, when the Government set up the Council for the Regulation of Healthcare Professionals and the Nursing and Midwifery Council earlier this year they chose a different end point for those bodies; namely, a council size of 23 and lay representation just short of 50 per cent.
	Will the Minister explain why it is that doctors are different? Is there not just as much need for lay representation on a body involving doctors as there is with other healthcare professionals? And while the reduction in the number of council members to 35 goes some way towards streamlining the GMC's deliberations, I rather doubt that any objective study of the effectiveness of organisational structures would endorse as many as 35 on the governing body. A number of the bodies consulted by the Department of Health came to that conclusion. Indeed, I would not even point to 23, as on the HPC and the NMC, as being the last word in organisational fitness. Can the Minister explain the rationale behind the figure of 35?
	Can the Minister give some idea of whether the new structure will be reviewed; and, if so, when? The objectives are clear—greater lay involvement and speedier processes in the public interest. But what if this largish body, with its rather individual governance structure, does not deliver the goods? When will the Government look again at this?
	I now turn to a second aspect of the order; namely, the new processes around fitness to practise, and in particular the new investigation committees and fitness to practise panels. I think it fair to say that much of this has met with general approbation, but it has been recognised that much of the detail of how the panels and committees will work in practice will not be known until the rules themselves are published. Will the Minister give an assurance that those rules will be subject to public consultation? The Consumers' Association in particular made this point.
	The Minister will be aware that the issue of a warning for less serious offences is a controversial one. This new sanction may not easily be understood by the outside world. Does it mean that a doctor is not guilty, or only a little bit guilty, or what? It does not necessarily sit easily alongside existing clinical governance processes that have been introduced into the NHS with much care and effort over the past decade or so. The Government have pressed ahead with this aspect of the reforms despite the concerns of, for example, the Joint Consultants Committee. Will the Government be keeping this new sanction under review? If so, when does the Minister expect the first review to be available?
	The third aspect on which I wish to focus is the issue of revalidation. We fully support the thrust of this proposal, but the devil is in the detail of the rules, as several consultees pointed out. When will the detailed rules be published and will they be consulted on? Again, the Consumers' Association feels that it is important to expose this area to public scrutiny before finalisation.
	My principal concern in this area is a practical one. Over the next few years, over 100,000 doctors will be seeking revalidation, plus the new intake from the medical schools and from overseas. The revalidation exercise will work well only if there are robust systems in the NHS on which revalidation can be based. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that NHS appraisal systems will be fit for that purpose, including achieving the elusive element of consistency? Are the Government satisfied that the necessary resources will exist within the GMC to undertake this task?
	The Minister will be aware that when the Nursing and Midwifery Council attempted its ambitious process of registration earlier this year, it got itself into a bit of a pickle and the registration timetable went off the rails. Is the Minister sure that nothing of the same ilk could happen with this revalidation exercise? What would be the position of a doctor whose revalidation had been held up for some reason outwith his own control—perhaps as a result of imperfections in registration processes?
	I am conscious that this is quite a long list of questions for the Minister, but these are important issues. I stress that we very much want to support the order and hope that the Minister will be able to give constructive answers to our questions.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, as the GMC admits in its annual report, it has suffered criticism over the years. I agree with the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Given the speed of changes in medical practice and the new elements of regulation that have been needed, many of us admire how the GMC has reformed itself, starting under the presidency of Sir Donald Irvine and then Sir Graeme Catto. Most of that reform has been instigated from the inside. With some caveats, therefore, I congratulate them on what we have before us today, the extensive consultation process that they engaged in throughout 2000 and 2001 to get there, and the principles that they have enunciated as being central to the reforms—effectiveness, inclusiveness, accountability and transparency—allied with the principle of professionally led regulation.
	Throughout, however, we must remember that the essence is to ensure good medical practice and that the system has the confidence of the public, patients and professionals. We welcome the changes, rather more unreservedly than the Opposition Benches in terms of the changes to governance. Specifically, I do not believe that one size for a regulatory body fits all. We welcome the fitness-to-practise changes and the introduction of revalidation. We also welcome the fact that the GMC will now have its report laid before each House and that the protection of the public will now be explicitly at the heart of the GMC's activities.
	Key, too, is ensuring that there is no duplication with other clinical governance, appraisal systems and quality assurance systems, whether carried out by the Royal Colleges, the NPSA, the National Clinical and Assessment Authority, health authorities or NHS trusts; otherwise, that will simply add to the burden on doctors without producing benefit. Professor Ian Kennedy, the new chairman of CHAI, talked of doctors being free of the "confetti of interference". As he said, they must be free from the pressure of multiple visitations by a variety of bodies. I am reassured by the conversations that I have had with the various agencies, but I would like to hear the Minister's assurance on that point.
	My one serious regret about the order is the way in which it is drafted—the Minister touched briefly on that. It is a nightmare. I speak as a lawyer quite used to reading regulations. The drafting, without any available concordance, is a model of how not to draft legislation. It has not been made easy to comprehend the changes made; it has almost been made as difficult as possible in the circumstances.
	My concerns about the order are essentially practical. I wish to discover what groundwork has been done to introduce it. I have a series of questions, and I apologise in advance for throwing them at the Minister. I know that, in his usual capable fashion, he will have anticipated half of them and I have no doubt that he will be able to answer them.
	To what extent were the revalidation process pilots carried out? How many doctors took part? How much time have the Government calculated will be taken up by assessors and individual doctors during, and in preparation for, the assessment? How many, and what percentage of, doctors failed the revalidation pilot process and subsequently were offered warnings, additional guidance and advice by assessors? That is an important factor in assessing the benefits of revalidation. What extra resources have been, or will be, made available by the Government for the revalidation process? The process requires locums to be engaged to meet patients needs. Will the GMC have the requisite resources to deal with fitness to practise cases in a timely fashion?
	Under the new electoral system, why is the GMC setting up different regions? Will the GMC handle future complaints on a regional basis also? An important point relating to Schedule 4(3A)(1) on page 36 is that the continuity of the presence of members of the investigation committee, the interim orders panel or the fitness to practise panel is not required when hearing cases. So it appears that members of the panel do not have to be present throughout a hearing. How can that be valid? Surely, in those circumstances, a defendant has the right to know that those hearing evidence against him or her have heard all the evidence and have been present throughout the case. That may be a misinterpretation, but I hope that the Minister can clarify it.
	I notice that now, consistently throughout the legislation as amended by the order, as a result of the interpretation Act being changed, the definition of registered medical practitioner in every case includes a fully registered person who holds a licence to practise under the Act. Is that consistent throughout the legislation? The very long list of legislation makes that point in a very confused manner.
	I shall now discuss registration and changes to Section 19 of the Medical Act 1983. We had a lively debate in this House in June as part of the National Health Service Reform and Health Care Professions Bill prompted by St George's University School of Medicine in Grenada. As anticipated in the reply to my amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, Section 19 is indeed being changed so that there will no longer be the status of recognised university qualification for EEA nationals. This means, I assume, that under the terms of the new section all students who are UK nationals, since they are not exempt, will have to take PLAB and IELTS rather than the GMC being satisfied that certain institutions have provided sufficiently high-quality pre- and post-clinical medical training. As I pointed out in the debate in June, it seems perverse to do that when there are high-quality institutions around the world where quality of training can be assured. I very much regret—both for those institutions, which could attract many more UK aspirant doctors, and for the individuals themselves, who will now have to jump through more hoops—that the approach that we on these Benches suggested back in June has not been adopted.
	I have two final comments. First, the consultation on these regulations has been a model. I very much hope that the consultations carried out over other medical reform, such as the establishment of the medical education and training board, which will have major implications for doctors, will follow a similar process.
	Secondly, it is deeply ironic that, while we are establishing an important new fitness-to-practise regime for the United Kingdom through the order, the proposed new directive on mutual recognition of professional qualifications will potentially drive a coach and horses through the regime and allow totally unregistered doctors to work here for 16 weeks. In contrast to some member states, the Government have not been energetic in resisting these proposals. I hope they will become much more vigorous. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Lord Patel: My Lords, I support the order. I shall try to be brief. I declare my interest. I am a fully registered doctor and a member of the council of the General Medical Council. For the past four years I have been a member of its education and professional conduct committee and I have also been a member of the interim orders committee.
	The medical profession supports the order and the amendment to the Act, which will introduce a streamlined structure reducing the size of the council. It will also introduce revalidation for a doctor's licence to practise medicine and streamline the current fitness-to-practise procedure, including the separation of investigation and adjudication.
	All the changes proposed have been discussed and discussed. I remember the many hours and days that we spent doing that. They have gone through an extensive consultation process. The medical profession is keen to have a system of professionally laid regulations that command the confidence of patients and doctors.
	I will conclude by quoting the GMC president, Professor Sir Graeme Catto, who said:
	"This order is an important milestone in the GMC reforms. We are on schedule to deliver the changes that we have proposed".
	The current officers and the council are well aware of the need to deliver all the changes on time. I have no doubt that the changes required to registration and recognition of training and experience of overseas doctors will be addressed by the GMC in the light of the changes proposed in the order.
	It is not my role to answer many of the questions raised, but I assure your Lordships that most, if not all, have been discussed by the GMC and it will deliver them.

Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I speak as a former lay member of the General Medical Council. I served for a five-year term and was present at the beginning of the discussions on the reform of the council. I fully support the order and congratulate the GMC, the Minister and the Government on it.
	Reform of the council was long overdue. Decision-making was tortuous, because of the time taken by having over 100 people present. The reduction in size will assist in the speed of decision-making. The increase in lay membership is also important.
	Will the Minister clarify that the lay membership does not exclude other health professionals participating? Healthcare practice today is a team process. There is value in having other health professionals participating on bodies. Just as the nurses and midwives council has other health professionals present, I hope that the presence of lay members on the new council will include some healthcare professionals, although not many, because it is important that the lay representation covers the wide public interest.
	The provisions in the order for the revalidation of doctors will benefit the practitioner, the patient and the public. That is crucial in any regulatory body. Fitness to practise is the key with the regulatory system. The order sets that out. There is much still to be done on regulation, but it is a miracle that we have got to this stage. I support the order.

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I, too, support the order. I declare an interest, as I am also registered with the General Medical Council as a practising doctor. I commend the Government on their open approach to consultation in drawing up the order. It has been not just consultation, but reconsultation with open channels of communication, resulting in the whole profession understanding why the changes are happening. These changes are being introduced remarkably peacefully and with a wide degree of understanding. They are also being welcomed by the profession.
	I reiterate the request from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this open process of consultation should be built on and used when other changes, such as those relating to education, are being looked at. The smooth transition that we have seen has much to commend it and will bring about the necessary changes to raise standards across the board.
	The revalidation processes are a major step forward and are recognised as necessary within the profession. They have to be done with sensitivity and with sense so that clinical time is not eroded. Those women—two thirds of our graduates are now women—who wish to should be able to have time out to raise a family for one, two or three years and then re-enter the profession. Those who wish to pursue other educational avenues should be able to broaden their horizons and then continue with their clinical practice.
	All the evidence that we have seen over many years is that those who take time out and then return to clinical practice do so with their clinical practice enhanced. The practitioners who have caused concern are those who have not taken time out from clinical practice, but have continued to practise without updating themselves and without auditing their own practice. Flexibility will be very important to maintain a vibrant workforce.
	There are some exciting examples of appraisal already occurring—not simply straightforward appraisal, but 360 degree appraisal and team appraisal, with input gained from all members of the team. The flexibility to allow that innovation and creativity is important.
	It is also important to reflect the wide range of duties and responsibilities that exist within the enormous envelope called medical practice. It goes from very high tech and complex practice right through to broad, generic, front-line practice, as one sees in some areas, particularly in the community. It would be impossible to transpose one set of practice into another where there are very highly specialised areas of scientific practice, particularly those doctors who work in specialised areas of laboratory medicine.
	To conclude, I commend the processes that have gone on behind the order and I support it. There is one small area that I should like the Minister to clarify, because it may not be as clear as might be helpful. Article 6(2) concerns full registration of EEA nationals by virtue of overseas primary qualifications. Will the Minister confirm that the General Medical Council will not be obliged to grant full registration in every case and that the order gives the council discretion in deciding whether it thinks fit to grant registration to the applicant, to ensure that the process of registration is truly based around fitness to practise?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome all noble Lords who have contributed to this interesting debate. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is broad support for the proposals in Parliament and among the medical profession, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has indicated. I again pay tribute to the GMC, to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who has played a positive role, and to members of the GMC past and present. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has played a distinguished role.
	There is clearly support for the concept of professional self-regulation to ensure public confidence. The Government also support that wholeheartedly.
	I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the drafting issues that he raised. I agree that this is a lengthy and complicated order, because of the way that it has been done, through amending the Medical Act. I hope that the broad thrust of our proposals comes through clearly.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, thought that a committee of 35 was too much. Indeed, I believe she considered a committee of 23 too much. Sometimes a committee of two is too much. Clearly, there is a delicate balance to be drawn between enabling us to have enough lay people to carry the profession with us and having some people nominated from the medical education world. Inevitably, one arrives at a figure higher than might be desirable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that one size does not fit all. In picking up the point raised by the noble Baroness as to why the GMC has only 40 per cent lay members while the NMC and HBC have 49 per cent, I believe that there are two points to be made. The key change is that the GMC will have a substantial and much increased lay voice. The exact arithmetic would matter only if regulators took decisions by votes which divided along lay versus professional lines. Experience shows that that does not occur.
	The main reason why the GMC's proportion of lay members differs from the NMC and HBC is that, unlike them, it has separate places reserved for educators. In view of the discussions we have had over the past 12 months about the importance of medical schools, I believe that noble Lords will agree that it is right that it should have places. But we wanted also to ensure a majority on the council for elected medical members in order to preserve the principle of professional self regulation. It is for that reason that we have reached a figure of 40 per cent of lay members.
	The question of the electoral base was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I understand that the Liberal Democrats are obsessive in their interest in the minutiae of electoral matters. Indeed, I am reliably informed that it is considered that the GMC took a rather Liberal Democrat approach to the proposals it is making for its electoral system.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, it is much more like an old-fashioned gerrymander to me.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, noble Lords would know more about that than I. The point is that the body has arrived at a system of five election areas in England based on postal districts. That is because it is taking the postal codes of every member of the GMC. It was divided up into five areas and that is why there are some quirks with Coventry and Warwickshire not appearing in the same electoral division.
	But that surely is matter for the GMC rather than we politicians. I believe it is best left to it. One of the reasons it followed the route of regional election constituencies is that at the last election I believe over 300 candidates stood and all electors were given a list of over 300 candidates. That proved to be somewhat trying for the electorate. This system will be much easier. For the noble Lord's interest, they are multi-member constituencies using the single transferable vote system.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that as regards a definition of lay membership, it has always been possible—and remains so—that other members of other professions could be nominated as lay members of the GMC. The balance of views which we have received in the consultation is that the nomination of lay members should be for those who speak up best for the public and patients. But that in no way rules out the possibility of a nurse being appointed. No doubt that will be very carefully considered.
	As regards the question of restructuring, I was quite surprised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, wishing us to review urgently and perhaps restructure again. Usually, she accuses me of restructuring far too many times. But the point to be made about that and her comments about fitness to practise is that it is one of the joys of a Section 60 approach. It does allow for changes to be made in the light of experience without having to go for primary legislation. I assure her, and I have been assured, that all these matters will be kept under review by the GMC. The noble Baroness is absolutely right in that these matters need to be reviewed in the light of practice. If the GMC comes forward to the Government and indicates that more changes need to be made, we shall listen to that very carefully indeed.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about appraisal and revalidation. I very much agree with her. The appraisal of all doctors and the revalidation process is a mammoth task. I would not underestimate the challenge facing the GMC, individual members of the profession, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has indicated, and the NHS itself. Clearly, we have to do all we can to make sure that this system is bedded down as effectively as possible.
	The GMC is planning to issue instructions, information and guidance about the new arrangements in April 2003. I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she requires that the GMC is required to consult professional bodies representing the medical professions. In addition, it has given a clear indication that it will consult more widely, as it has done already in developing the proposals in this order. I certainly agree that the amount of time spent on appraisal and revalidation is important. I am told that the actual time for appraisals differs from individual to individual. But anecdotal evidence suggests that the average time commitment for appraisal is a minimum of four-and-a-half hours up to six-and-a-half hours. That includes between two and four hours for preparation. We recognise that there will be a learning curve and that the time commitment in the first year of appraisal may be higher as trusts and individual doctors adapt to the new system. But all of us who have been involved in appraisal will recognise that it does take time and probably ought to do so, and that the benefits are there both for the individual and the organisation provided that it is done effectively.
	I do not have all the information that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for such as the number of doctors in the pilot schemes. I shall try to get that information. Perhaps I may ask the GMC to write to the noble Lord directly in relation to revalidation. I am told that the pilot schemes have been very valuable and that the GMC is still considering some of the results. I shall seek to find as much information as I can on that matter.
	I agree with the noble Lord on the issue of duplication. In my opening remarks I referred to the need for the GMC to pick up the most serious cases, but we must hope that NHS trusts will be able to take a more vigorous approach at local level to sorting out some of the issues that would not be classed as serious but nevertheless can become a running sore.
	I know that noble Lords have been concerned for a long time about the number of doctors suspended. The establishment of the NCAA is an important process of trying to turn that around. I am convinced that it is to the benefit of the NHS and doctors to try and nip some of the problems in the bud at an early stage.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked what would happen to a doctor whose revalidation was delayed through no fault of his own. I am advised that the doctor would retain the licence to practise unless it had been withdrawn if the doctor had been referred to a fitness-to-practise panel. The licence does not expire; it is not time limited. It is clear that the intention is that revalidation should take place on a five-year basis, starting in 2005.
	The cost to the GMC of operating revalidation is estimated at approximately £8 million per year. The cost to individual doctors is a matter to be decided. As your Lordships would expect, when it comes to fee structure the GMC will be seeking doctors' views. I have no doubt that there will be a healthy response.
	In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I confirm that the GMC has discretion in the matter. That discretion must be exercised reasonably, but it is clear that the GMC must have regard to its responsibility to protect the public interest by ensuring that only those doctors fit to practise are allowed to do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about admission to the register. The practice in the UK is that a doctor needs to be placed on the medical register by the GMC. That can be through the UK primary medical qualification, plus a satisfactory pre-registration house officer year. For a person with a primary medical qualification from outside the European Economic Area, the GMC is required by law to satisfy itself that he has the necessary knowledge and interest. That is normally done by requiring such doctors to pass the International English Language Testing Scheme examination.
	EC law prevents us from applying such a requirement to people qualifying in the EEA, but employers have a responsibility to ensure that anyone they appoint knows enough English to do their job properly. I can reassure noble Lords that the GMC has begun a fundamental review of registration, due to report in May 2003, which will lead to consultation on any changes recommended. I can also assure the House that if the law needs to change, the Government would consult on a draft of any new provision under the Section 60 order procedure.
	I know that there is concern about the 22 Commonwealth medical schools, graduates of which up to now have had privileged access to the UK as if they were graduates of UK medical schools. I am aware of some of the issues and problems that that policy entails. It has discriminated against all other medical graduates from the Commonwealth, from Canada, Nigeria, or Pakistan, and against doctors from anywhere else in the world. It has often amounted to indirect racial discrimination. There has never been objective evidence that those 22 medical degrees were better than one, say, from Harvard. In future, all doctors from outside the EEA will have to provide the same objective evidence of competence at the point of entry to the register.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to St George's University School of Medicine. That issue has been raised with the department before. I will chase up the matter and respond to him directly, as it is important.
	I was asked about delays in registration. I understand that noble Lords want to be assured that some of the problems that the NMC inherited from the UKCC, which I am glad to say are now being tackled with vigour, do not arise in the case of the GMC. I have two points to make. There is no doubt that currently in proceedings against doctors there have been long delays within the GMC. Our hope is that the restructuring brought about by the order will enable many of those delays to be tackled.
	I am assured that if a doctor's paper is in order, registration from the UK or the EEA can be accomplished by the GMC within a fortnight. The problem seems to lie with doctors outwith, who are having to prove their specialism, which can cause delays. No doubt the matter will be looked at by the GMC and other regulatory bodies. Not only the GMC is involved in those cases.
	I very much welcome the spirit of consultation which noble Lords have commended, and for which I thank noble Lords. There is a suggestion that this spirit should be applied to the Postgraduate Medical and Training Board. I do not quite understand why noble Lords should think that the Government's spirit of openness and consultation has not applied to discussions on the Postgraduate Medical and Training Board. I reassure noble Lords that there is a joint working group with at least six royal college presidents in membership. We shall be working very hard through the joint working group to ensure that, when we bring the relevant order before your Lordships, it will have been thoroughly tested and consulted upon.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has raised before—the issue of mutual recognition. I did not quite understand the noble Lord's suggestion that the Government have been slow to act. As I said when this issue was raised previously in your Lordships' House, we have concerns which we are raising in Europe.
	I hope that I have covered most of the points raised. This is a very good order, and I thank noble Lords for their support.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Burma (Myanmar)

Baroness Cox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their response is to recent developments in Burma (Myanmar).
	My Lords, I thank very warmly all noble Lords participating in this debate, especially as the date has been made available at relatively short notice, so soon after the opening of Parliament. I am sorry that some noble Lords who wished to contribute—such as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who speaks with great authority on this subject—are unable to be here except in spirit. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject today as I returned last week from the region and am deeply concerned about the situation.
	Despite token gestures by the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) regime, such as the release of some political prisoners, it continues to perpetrate gross violations of human rights, such as the use of forced labour, human minesweepers, child soldiers, military offensives against innocent civilians, rape, torture and massacre. Such atrocities in the Karen, Karenni, Shan, Mon, Chin and Arakan states continue unabated. The violations are so systematic, ruthless and comprehensive that they can justifiably be designated as ethnic cleansing or genocide.
	The SPDC has taken no steps towards democratic reform since the release from house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi on 6th May 2002, and it continues to support or condone widespread brutality, corruption and trafficking in narcotic drugs.
	I shall focus primarily on the plight of the ethnic minorities, as the recent visit to the Karen, Karenni and Shan people provides first-hand testimonies of the desperate plight they encounter. I will not disclose locations as the SPDC is notorious for its policies of retaliation, but I would naturally be willing to supply details to your Lordships on request.
	First in this dreary and disturbing catalogue of human rights violations is the widespread and persistent use of forced labour. Civilians are arrested by the Burmese army and forced to work in such harsh conditions that some, especially the elderly, die or are beaten to death. The requirement to undertake forced labour as porters carrying food or ammunition for SPDC troops can be so frequent that villagers cannot adequately tend their own crops or sustain their families.
	A typical account was given by a 45-year-old man who had fled his village three months ago because SPDC soldiers had killed his brother and were looking for him. He was afraid that they would kill him, too. He had fled with his family, and they are now living in very harsh conditions as internally displaced persons within Karen state. When asked how many times he had been forced to act as a porter, he laughed rather sickly and said that he had lost count, but that he had been compelled to undertake forced labour so often that it had been impossible to look after his own crops and to maintain a living.
	Second in this catalogue is the use of human beings as minesweepers. SPDC troops force civilian porters to walk ahead of them so that they will be blown up if there is a mine in the pathway. One victim of this policy is a Buddhist farmer, aged 38, with one leg amputated below the knee and the other severely mutilated. He described how, eight months ago, he had been injured when forced to carry food for SPDC troops. The soldiers had forced him to walk ahead, and he had trodden on a landmine which blew off his right foot and severely wounded his left leg. The soldiers left him to die in the jungle. Word of his plight reached his village and his uncle came to rescue him. However, his uncle stepped on a mine and was killed outright. Two days later, other villagers came to take him back to the village. They could not take him for treatment in Burma as they would have had to pay prohibitive costs, so he was taken across the border to Mae La camp, where he was given a below-knee amputation. He subsequently returned to Karen State.
	He described how he had had to undertake spells of forced labour at least 20 times, carrying ammunition weighing about 40 kilograms. When he was hit by the landmine, his wife was pregnant. She gave birth just two days before we spoke with him. However, they could not return to their village because he could not work and because they fear that the village may have been mined. Four other people from his village had also been killed by landmines in recent months. He also described how SPDC soldiers maltreated the porters undertaking forced labour. If they became weak or ill or were not strong enough to carry the heavy loads, the soldiers would beat and kick them to such an extent that many died. Although he is a Buddhist, he claimed that the SPDC tends to treat Christians worse than Buddhists because it wants to force all people to become Buddhists.
	Thirdly, I turn to military attacks on villages, in which villagers may be killed, tortured, raped and their livestock stolen or killed, their crops burnt and homes destroyed. For example, in central Dooplaya district in Karen state, from April to June this year over 5,000 people have been displaced, six villages burnt, six schools destroyed, three churches burnt, 15 villagers murdered, including women and children as young as two years old, three pastors captured and tortured for five days, their whereabouts still unknown, and over 28 villages attacked and looted and the villagers forced to relocate. So, over 1,000 of these people are hiding in the jungle attempting to escape through Burma army patrols to safety in Thailand.
	There is also concern that retaliatory attacks are carried out regularly against Karen villages by SPDC troops after they have engaged in military action with Karen soldiers in the vicinity. This policy of reprisal is obviously totally unacceptable.
	Fourthly, there is evidence of an SPDC campaign of sexual violence, including gang rape, especially of women in Shan state. Colleagues interviewed 12 Shan women who had been subjected to such gang rape and one described how her two daughters had subsequently been killed by SPDC soldiers.
	Fifthly, I refer to the abduction of children by SPDC soldiers and their conscription into the army. We interviewed two recent defectors from the SPDC army. They are both Burman Buddhists who had been abducted at a very young age and forced to serve in the army. One boy is a young Buddhist aged 14 from a town in Yan Gon area. He had been captured by SPDC soldiers when he was just 11 years old. Those soldiers grabbed him when he was standing at a bus station going to visit his aunt. They took him to Ta Kyin Koe First Battalion Camp. He has not been allowed to contact his parents for the past three years.
	He said that there were many boys of similar age in that camp. After eight months he was sent to a training camp for regular soldiers for the fifth battalion where he underwent basic training for four to five months before being sent to Light Infantry Battalion 341 in Karen state in Papun township. After a few days he was sent to the front line. In a unit of 30 soldiers, 15 were about his age. They were treated like adult soldiers, having to undertake regular military activities. They were sometimes beaten by the NCOs. During seven to eight months at the front line, he saw villages being attacked, local villagers rounded up and having to work for the army or pay fines to avoid such work.
	The SPDC told him and the other boy soldiers that the Karen people would kill them if they ran away. He believed them, but he was so unhappy that he did escape, preferring to die rather than to remain in the army. In the event he found that the Karen were extremely kind and looked after him extremely well.
	Sixthly, we were told that the SPDC is building a dam in Tho Tom district which will flood seven or eight Karen villages. The river is a tributary of the Swaleen river. To add insult to injury, the villagers are required to provide the labour for the construction of the dam which will destroy their homes, their land and their livelihood. Each household has to make available one member of its family every day to work without payment. If they refuse, they have to pay a fine of 500 kyat. The SPDC authorities have not provided any alternative land or homes, and the people who will be displaced have nowhere to go for shelter or to feed their animals, when the dam is completed next year. The authorities claim that the dam is needed to supply water, but the local Karen categorically claim that there is no water shortage in the region.
	The cumulative effect of such policies can, as I said, be described as genocide, in the sense that they are designed to clear the peoples from their homelands by killing them, terrorising them, destroying their means of subsistence and denying them the basic essentials for physical and cultural survival.
	Gestures made by the SPDC, such as the recent release of political prisoners, must be understood in context. Those prisoners have, allegedly, been brainwashed during their incarceration and released on condition that they do not speak out against the regime. It is also claimed that they will be closely monitored and that their continuing freedom will be conditional on their compliance.
	May I therefore ask the Minister, first, what pressure Her Majesty's Government have brought to bear on the SPDC to implement a nation-wide ceasefire and take forward a genuine dialogue with the democracy movement in general, and with the ethnic minorities in particular, to try to achieve a political solution and peace with justice for all the people of Burma? Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government raise with the SPDC the violations of human rights to which we have testified and which have been documented by many other organisations? Thirdly, will the Government urge the International Labour Organisation to pursue further its investigations into the SPDC's continuing policy of forced labour and associated brutalities? Fourthly, will the Government work with the international community to require the SPDC to allow access to all parts of Burma by independent, international humanitarian aid and human rights organisations? At present, many people die from lack of food and essential healthcare. If the SPDC has nothing to hide, why does it not allow unfettered access to all its citizens? Fifthly, if the SPDC is not willing to allow such measures, will Her Majesty's Government consider encouraging the international community to increase diplomatic sanctions and to consider other policies, such as economic sanctions, as a matter of urgency? Finally, will Her Majesty's Government request China, India, Pakistan and Singapore not to sell military weapons to the SPDC while it continues to use them to kill its own people?
	Many Karen and Karenni people regard Britain with respect and affection. They remember with appreciation the dignity that they were afforded by the British administration, and they recall how many of them died fighting alongside British forces and, sometimes, for British soldiers. The international community in general, and Britain in particular, have a moral imperative to help to save the lives of thousands of innocent civilians who are suffering and dying in Burma today at the hands of a brutal regime. One IDP asked:
	"The SPDC tortures, kills, burns and steals—what kind of government is this?".
	They will be listening to the reply from Her Majesty's Government tonight to find out what kind of government we have and how they will demonstrate a commitment to human rights, peace and justice for the people suffering so much in Burma today. It is my fervent hope that they will not be disappointed.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, once again the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for drawing our attention to the continued persecution of minority groups in Burma. We are particularly fortunate to have the benefit of the first-hand report that the noble Baroness brings to us following her recent visit to the region.
	During a previous debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on 2nd October, 2000, I expressed the hope that Her Majesty's Government would press for co-ordinated international action to assist the non-Burmese minorities who daily suffered the denial of basic human rights. I said that the United Nations—the Security Council, in particular—should act with urgency. I also expressed the hope that,
	"in considering what they can do, the Government will act as quickly as they can to press for a fresh international initiative which will bring before an international criminal tribunal those responsible for crimes which they have committed, and are continuing to commit, against humanity".—[Official Report, 2/10/00; col. 1214.]
	Here we are, two years and two months later, still pursuing the same demands. It is clear that little or no progress has been achieved. More, much more, must be done by the United Nations. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government should press for a common European Union policy of sanctions. The need for immediate and meaningful international intervention is overwhelming. Report after report from the areas mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, confirms that the atrocities take place in a systematic and ruthless manner.
	As recently as last month the General Assembly affirmed that the establishment of a genuine democratic government in Myanmar is essential for the realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms. That draft resolution, distributed on 12th November, referred to the release of a number of political prisoners and, among other matters, welcomed the appointment by the International Labour Organisation of a liaison officer in Myanmar as a first step towards the establishment of full and effective representation of that organisation in the country.
	While the international community can draw some comfort from the words contained in the draft, it should also take serious notice of the grave concerns expressed, in particular the grave concern about the ongoing systematic violation of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Myanmar; the extra-judicial killings, rapes and other forms of sexual violence carried out by members of the armed forces; the use of torture; and renewed instances of political arrests and the continued detentions, including those of prisoners whose sentences have already expired. There is concern about forced relocation; the destruction of livelihoods; forced labour; and the denial of freedoms of assembly, of association, of expressions and of movement.
	The United Nations has also said that it has great concern about discrimination on the basis of religious or ethnic background, widespread disrespect for the rule of law and lack of independence of the judiciary.
	These very grave concerns of the United Nations deserve our attention. It is of little comfort, however, to those who exist in very unsatisfactory conditions, many of them detained against their will, children who are forced to become soldiers, and those without proper medical care and educational facilities. For these unfortunate and long suffering people, words in resolutions and reports are meaningless unless accompanied by action. This evening we can do more than just sympathise. We can insist that our Government redouble their efforts within the European Union to support fully the recent call from the United Nations for the Government of Burma to fulfil their obligations; to restore the independence of the judiciary; and to take immediate action fully to implement concrete legislative, executive and administrative measures to end the use of forced labour.
	We have heard much in recent times about the need for independent and effective examination—this in relation to other parts of the world. I suggest that it is just as important to the people we are talking about this evening.
	We should ask our Government to press for safe and unhindered access by the United Nations and other humanitarian organisations, as called for by the UN. They should be allowed to go and see what is going on for themselves, so that the world can have its eyes opened, as this House has again had its eyes opened this evening through the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. There is no lack of evidence to support the need for action.
	Last month, Christian Solidarity Worldwide—an organisation I support and admire—published a report containing horrific details of the brutal use of systematic rape practised by the Burmese military. Perhaps I may describe two accounts. The first concerns a young woman aged 22, Nan Ei. She was looking for dockfruit—a kind of jungle fruit—when she came across column commander Captain Ye Htut and second-in-command Lieutenant Htin Kyaw. The soldiers took Nan Ei and her companion to their army base in Pah Klaw Hta in Nyaunglebin district. I hope that I have pronounced the names of those places correctly. The noble Baroness will tell me later if I have not; I am always willing to learn. However, they are in the Karen state. That night, on 10th June, Nan Ei was brutally gang-raped by 20 soldiers. On her release the next day, Nan Ei recounted her ordeal:
	"I was raped by the column commander, Captain Ye Htut, first, then he ordered his soldiers to rape me. He said, 'You must all rape that Karen woman. Those who refuse to rape will be shot and killed'".
	Nan Ei killed herself that night when no one was around. She died alone after going through that ordeal.
	The second account is from Naang Yord. She told of the time about two years ago when her village in Shan state was forcibly relocated to a new site where the land was less fertile. Together with her eldest daughter and her niece, Naang Yord sneaked back to the family's old rice fields. They wanted to harvest some rice to pay for the funeral of her husband, who had just passed away. But they were spotted by a Burmese patrol and a nightmare began. Naang Yord said:
	"They put a plastic sheet over my head and then, one by one, they assaulted me".
	Holding back her tears, she continued:
	"I didn't see what they were doing to my two girls. I could just hear continuous moaning. Then two gunshots. Later, I found their bodies not far away. Their fists were still dug hard into the grass. They laid there, naked, motionless. The only things left on them were their sarongs folded up to their waists".
	I want to repeat to the House a question posed by an elderly Catholic nun. She works with the internally displaced ethnic people who told of how women and children were "living like animals" in the jungle. This wonderful nun said that she admired, but despaired of, their bravery in making dangerous and difficult journeys, dodging Burmese soldiers to come for small handouts of rice and salt. She spoke of their fear and suffering and also of the gratitude in their eyes. She said:
	"Why doesn't anybody care?".
	She also asked:
	"What do we have to do to make the world realise how bad the situation is?".
	How do we answer her question?
	The answer, however inadequate it may seem, is to support and endorse the six measures outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. In her moving and thought-provoking speech, the noble Baroness gave us a way forward, however inadequate it may seem to the people who are suffering. Again, I pay tribute to her for her dedication to the suffering minorities in Burma and, as this House knows only too well, for her concern for other parts of the world. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships that these measures will be pursued with energy and determination.

Lord Moynihan: My Lords, over the two years since this House last met to debate the subject of Burma, some observers have had cause to express hope. There have been cracks in the once firmly locked doors of the offices of democratic groups. We have seen the release of some 350 political prisoners. Optimism has been generated by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's release on 6th May. There has been hope that, at last, the SPDC will not break promises to move forward in its transition to democracy. Hope has been vested in the authority of UN envoy, Tan Sri Razali Ismail, whose reputation as an outstanding diplomat has been widely recognised.
	However, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, said, such hope has, sadly, been forlorn. It is no surprise that a fortnight ago, our Foreign Office Minister, Mr O'Brien, welcomed the adoption of a resolution of the third committee of the UN General Assembly that expressed grave concern over the human rights situation in Burma. The resolution, which was co-sponsored by the European Union, expressed concern about the ongoing, systematic violation of human rights, including the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the people of Burma. Particular concern was expressed about the continued detention of political prisoners and the human rights abuses in the ethnic minority areas of Burma that were alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. That strong reaction from the Government was both welcome and necessary.
	We have heard similar views, not least from the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr James Kelly. He said that nothing demonstrated that more clearly to him than the SPDC's reaction to allegations of extensive, systematic use of rape by the military in Shan state and its manipulation of the International Committee of the Red Cross's efforts to expand its work in ethnic regions.
	The report License to Rape, which has been alluded to, was issued in May of this year. It lists in detail the Burmese military regime's use of sexual violence in the ongoing war in Shan state. It is essential, if horrific, reading, not least as a terrifying expose of the systematic use of terror and violence in the modern world. Under the heading, "Rape condoned as a weapon of war", it lists the systematic and widespread incidence of rape, officers committing rape, further torture, the killing of raped women, and gang rape. There are also sections on militarisation leading to increased vulnerability to rape, forced relocation and forced labour—and so, tragically, it goes on.
	The regime in Burma persists in a twin approach of brutal violation of its ethnic minorities and repressive policies against its political opponents. The Myanmar Government continue to rule by the law of terror and oppression. Democracy, political pluralism and opposition have no place under that regime. The ethnic and religious minorities who live within the borders of Burma, and who, by their very nature of minority status, should most merit the protection of the government, are routinely terrorised, while those who are brave enough to stand up for their beliefs risk arrest, detention, torture and murder.
	So I am glad that my noble friend Lady Cox has led this debate. She has described the horrific abuses of human rights in Burma, the effects of which she has witnessed on so many occasions. This is humanity at the nadir of its existence.
	What has happened in the years since we last debated Burma? There has been a continuation of gross abuses and shocking violations of human rights. The systematic deportations of the Karenni to relocation camps where foreign NGOs have not been allowed access and the ethnic cleansing of the Karen, akin to genocide, defy description and words to condemn them are not strong enough.
	Summary executions; deaths in custody; absences of due process of law; inhumane treatment of political detainees, particularly in the notorious prisons outside Rangoon; forced civilian labour, which the US Embassy in Rangoon estimates generates 3 per cent of Burma's GDP, and which is often used for infrastructure projects such as roads and airports intended to promote tourism in that country; child labour; disappearances; executions; civilians, including young girls and boys, forced to act as porters and carry supplies and ammunition for the tatmadaw—these are all part, as we have heard today, of daily life in Burma.
	At the turn of this century, Amnesty International's Country Report opened with the paragraph:
	"Scores of people were arrested for political reasons and 200 people, some of them prisoners of conscience, were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. More than 1,200 political prisoners arrested in previous years including 89 prisoners of conscience and hundreds of possible prisoners of conscience, remained in prison".
	With Britain's record of strong links with Burma, it is hard to stand by and watch as the country is brought to its knees. Economic and social collapse—the bedfellows of a strangled democracy—are fast beckoning Burma towards a future of yet more chaos and misery. In a recent report, the UN special rapporteur confirmed that when he said:
	"No concrete progress, most unfortunately, can be reported on the general situation of human rights in Myanmar. On the contrary repression of political and civil rights continues in Myanmar, including summary or arbitrary executions, abuse of women and children by soldiers and the imposition of oppressive measures directed in particular at ethnic or religious minorities, including the continuing use of forced labour and relocation".
	The ethical dimension to the Government's human rights policy raised many expectations when first elucidated to the House. Many critical comparisons were made between the Government's hardline policy towards Burma and their "softly, softly" approach to China, whose human rights abuses many considered to be equally egregious. Despite those double standards, if the ethical dimension to foreign policy had any backbone whatever, its force should first and foremost have been felt by a regime as steeped in blood and tyranny as that of Burma.
	Human Rights Watch has called for a new multilateral policy towards Burma, which would include dialogue with the Burmese army, the democratic opposition and the ethnic minority organisations, combined with co-ordination on common interests between Western donors, Japan, the Association of South-East Asian Nations, and China, as well as seeking actively to engage China in finding a solution to the Burmese impasse, on the basis that neither the international community's policy of isolation on the one hand nor constructive engagement on the other were working.
	The winds of change are sweeping across south-east Asia. We must do more than cross our fingers and hope that Burma does not remain immune to the process of democratic reform that is taking place around her. Will the Minister outline how the Government are seeking to harness those forces of reform to bring them to bear in Burma? What active measures are the Government taking to sustain the Burmese opposition, and what progress is being made to resist the regime's efforts to wear down international resistance to its undemocratic rule, given the continuing oppression of the National League for Democracy?
	The challenge for the international community now lies in matching our goals for Burma's future with the tools available. It is not inappropriate to ask why we do not apply equal attention, resources and rhetoric to those who possess weapons of mass destruction and those regimes that enact torture, rape, fear and humiliation on their own people. If this is to be a century in which we recognise and promote human rights for every man, woman and child, we could do worse than to turn the cameras of Cable News Network on Burma and the attention of packed, influential parliaments in the West to man's inhumanity to men, women and children wherever it exists.
	Our tools of persuasion are limited and we have few calibrations of subtlety and balance. The tools of condemnation and isolation are blunt and heavy, but they are justified if, and only if, they achieve a result. That result would be a peaceful and stable government in Burma who reflected, not rejected, the will of the Burmese people; a government who turned their energy to fighting the battle against poverty, rape, corruption and despair, rather than fighting their own people; and a government who are an engine of growth and a full participant in the global economy, rather than the outpost of condemned isolation that they are today. That is no easy task, but it is one that we must today, once again, pledge ourselves to fulfil.

Baroness Northover: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this important debate, which she did with appalling clarity. It would be good to able to say that we can see the situation in Burma improving. Can we see a chink of light? If so, it is surely distant. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, argued, little has changed in recent times. Yet, the country's current economic plight, after years of economic mismanagement, may present an opportunity for the international community to do more to bring pressure to bear on the country to democratise and put an end to its widespread human rights abuses. As the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead, put it, words are not enough. We need action. We cannot stand by while atrocities such as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, have described are carried out.
	It is welcome that Suu Kyi has been released from house arrest and that she has had some freedoms restored to her. But that means little to ordinary people unless democratic rights are extended much further. Her release has clearly been used as a smokescreen covering further human rights abuses, as the international world concentrates on her and not on what is happening to the vast majority of the oppressed population.
	As the New York Times put it on 28th November, six months after her release, Burma's,
	"military rulers seem to have lost interest in political compromise".
	They have released only a trickle of political prisoners from among more than 1,000 who are behind bars. They have dragged their feet on a pledge to open substantive talks with Suu Kyi and her political party, the National League for Democracy. One of the top generals has stated that,
	"the process is moving forward. But such movement can only occur at a pace with which we are comfortable".
	The world should not wait until such generals feel "comfortable".
	There is a feeling among some that international opinion is focusing chiefly on the need to democratise Burma and expecting human rights abuses thereafter to be curbed. Those working in that field argue that human rights abuses must be tackled now. I believe that has come across clearly in this debate. It simply cannot wait.
	As we have heard, the particular concern is with the Karen and Shan people, among whom guerrillas have been based and against whom the military authorities have taken vicious action. As the Jubilee Campaign explains, the Burmese Government have pursued what is known as the "Four Cuts Policy", designed to deprive the guerrillas of any possible food, funds, recruitment or intelligence from the civilian population. To quote the Jubilee Campaign:
	"Especially since the 1990s the Four Cuts Policy has amounted to an intense, deliberate and systematic targeting of the civilian populations of the Karen, Karenni and Shan people by the Burmese military, resulting in widespread atrocities. One observer has described the Burmese military's tactics as draining the ocean so that the fish can't swim—the ocean being the civilian community and the fish the guerrillas".
	As we have heard, above half a million people have been forcibly relocated, away from their villages to areas controlled by the military. Those who flee are likely to be shot on sight if discovered and, of course, fleeing from place to place means that they cannot cultivate crops or adequately support themselves. Healthcare is virtually non-existent. Those who are relocated are often forced into labour or the army. There have been massacres, again as we have heard, as people seek to flee across the border with Thailand.
	The government in Thailand, in recent times, have sought to return some of those refugees as they seek to improve their own relations with the government in Rangoon—although once refugees are in the refugee camps, overseen by the international community, they are likely to be safe.
	I should like to ask the Minister what assistance is being provided to such people—the dispossessed? Is the aid in the form of financial support for those still within Burma, rather than simply within the refugee camps in Thailand, welcome though that is? Will the Government work closely with NGOs on the Thai/Burma border to send cross-border humanitarian aid from Thailand to the half million internally displaced people in eastern Burma?
	What pressure is being brought to bear on the Burmese Government to halt those atrocities and what are the British Government doing to raise the cases of the Karen, Karenni and Shan at the United Nations? In addition, what pressure is being brought on the Burmese Government to admit people from those oppressed communities to the talks, limited though they are, with the National League for Democracy? And if, as seems to be the case, the Burmese Government deny that atrocities are taking place, will they agree to admit human rights monitors to the Karen, Karenni and Shan areas of Burma, as has been suggested, to investigate and monitor the human rights situation?
	Besides the human rights problems in the eastern region of the country, there has long been a problem with forced labour. The ILO brought out its report last year and now has someone in Rangoon monitoring its implementation. We would welcome the fact that pressure continues to be applied by the ILO. The Burmese Government have agreed to put an end to the practice of forced labour, issuing edicts to that effect. As others have said, nevertheless the practice continues, particularly in the rural areas, but on a more informal basis.
	In terms of how pressure may be brought to bear, we need to look at the effect of economic sanctions. Clearly, that is a problematic area. There surely must be widespread support for "smarter" sanctions against repressive regimes, such as the EU arms embargo and severance of defence links with Burma. Britain must take more action to combat arms brokers. However, I note that the International Development Select Committee recently reported in The Future of Sanctions that there is evidence to suggest that economic sanctions often do not target those truly responsible while increasing the suffering of civilian populations. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that issue. We would certainly like to see the establishment of a UN body with responsibility for targeting financial sanctions and the establishment of an office of foreign assets control so that individuals and states are more effectively targeted. But in the case of Burma it can be argued that since any company seeking to work in Burma must work with the military regime, it is the military regime that benefits first and foremost. Could the Minister comment on whether the Government are maintaining a policy of discouraging investment in Burma, and what do they do when companies ignore that recommendation?
	I note that BAT Industries is one company that is established in Burma, and of course Kenneth Clarke is on its board. That is surely one industry which has no place in Burma in any capacity or, for that matter, any role in any developing country; or—dare I say—anywhere. The terrible toll of illness and death that has resulted from the use of tobacco in western countries should simply not be visited on developing countries. Burma has enough health problems among its population without incurring further harm.
	It is clearly a great challenge, given the nature of the regime in Burma, to get international assistance into the country so far as health problems are concerned. There is of course a strong link between poverty and ill-health, and between poverty and reproductive health. A report in the Lancet recently has detailed how Burma's health is in crisis. The infant mortality rate is at least twice as high as that in Vietnam and Thailand. One million children are poorly nourished, and malaria, TB and diarrhoeal diseases are widespread. Women in Burma face particular health problems because of poor living conditions, inadequate health services and lack of education. We have already heard this evening how rape is used as a weapon of war. Healthcare is even more deficient in ethnic minority regions where constant relocation and heavy losses of life among men have left women with the complete responsibility for raising children. Maternal mortality rates are about 580 per 100,000 live births compared with about 80 for Malaysians. Abortion is used by a very large proportion of women as a means of birth control in the absence of other means. AIDS is an increasing problem, particularly on the Thai border.
	As the United Nations Family Planning Association declared in a statement issued with the publication today of its report People, Poverty and Possibilities: Making Development Work for the Poor,
	"addressing population concerns is critical to meeting the UN's Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty and hunger by 2015, reducing maternal and child mortality, curbing HIV/AIDS, advancing gender equality, and promoting environmentally sustainable development".
	It designates Burma as a category A country where there is the most urgent need of assistance. And yet, because of the regime in Burma, it cannot get that aid in. It has therefore been unable to channel adequate funding into Burma. The kind of action that UNFPA has been able to take in China, for example, has proved impossible in Burma.
	Robert Templer, writing in a recent report for the International Crisis group, stated that it was not certain that attempts to avoid a health disaster in Burma would succeed, but that certainly Burma could not turn the tide,
	"without immediate, substantial and sustained financial and technical support".
	I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government have found any means to deliver this kind of aid and what other assistance is feasible to try to improve the health of the Burmese people, and thus to help lift them out of poverty. The Government's preference is, as I know, to work with governments. They must not in a case like this, when they do not wish to deal with a government like the Burmese Government, neglect the people of Burma. What are they doing through NGOs to try to change things?
	Burma is clearly in the grips of a social, political and economic crisis. Human rights abuses abound, as we have heard, and democracy looks as far away as ever. And yet now just might be a time of opportunity. The military regime in Burma does respond to foreign pressure, if only to step up its propaganda efforts. It is in dire need of economic assistance, and this may just open the possibility for the international community to influence events. We have to hope that the international community is ready and willing to do just that and that the abuses that we have heard about will shock people into action.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for this opportunity to debate the current situation in Burma.
	Last month the EU reaffirmed its position on Burma—an arms embargo, bans on supply of equipment that would be used for internal repression, no defence links, no non-humanitarian aid, no high-level visits, a visa ban and an asset freeze on members of the regime. These sanctions share one clear objective—to place the military regime on notice that it must seek a peaceful solution to resolve the political deadlock in Burma and cannot continue to ignore the aspirations of the people.
	The Burmese people have shown admirable courage and resilience in refusing to give up hope of democracy. They deserve our support. Today the House has been united in its condemnation of the regime in Burma.
	The human rights situation in Burma offers just a glimmer of hope. The junta has recognised that change is necessary. The International Labour Organisation has established a liaison officer in Rangoon, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said. We welcome the re-opening of some NLD offices and a reduction in the restrictions applied to the NLD and other political groups. The release from house arrest of the opposition leader, Daw Suu Kyi, is perhaps the biggest step taken to date. This has been accompanied by her increased freedom to travel, with less but by no means no restriction on behalf of the authorities. We also welcome the dissemination of human rights standards for public officials, some governmental organisations and ethnic groups through a series of human rights workshops. But now we need to see the end of politically inspired arrests, the release of all political prisoners and the establishment of a genuine government in Burma.
	As my noble friends Lady Cox and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, pointed out in excellent speeches, the regime is still systematically perpetrating gross violations of human rights. Children as young as 11 are being snatched off the streets, given military training and then coerced into battle and barred from contacting their families.
	My noble friend Lady Cox spoke very clearly of the terrible suffering in Burma's border areas, and particularly of attacks on the Karen, Karenni and Shan people. My noble friend has also drawn the attention of the House to the persistent and widespread use of forced labour, the use of human beings as mine-sweepers and the continual attacks on villages and the displacement of villagers. Indeed, recent UN estimates indicate that up to 600,000 Burmese may be internally displaced.
	We on these Benches express our grave concern at the murders, rapes and other forms of sexual violence and torture carried out by members of the armed forces. My noble friend Lord Moynihan described this rightly as humanity at its nadir of existence.
	In May this year, the Shan Human Rights Foundation published a shocking report detailing the rape of 625 girls and women in Shan state by Burmese government troops in the past five years. According to the report, Licensed to Rape, 83 per cent were committed by army officers. The rapes involved extreme brutality and often torture in the form of beating, mutilation and suffocation. Twenty-five per cent of the rape victims were killed; 61 per cent were gang rapes. Out of a total of 173 documented incidents, only one perpetrator was ever punished.
	Two years ago, the military regime began talks with Daw Suu Kyi, ostensibly to discuss political transition. Since then, the regime has released 550 political prisoners, citing this as proof of its goodwill. However, of these, less than 150 were released early. The others had either been detained without charge or had already completed, or even exceeded, their sentences.
	Furthermore, the releases that have taken place are not unconditional. Nearly every one of the released prisoners has been forced to sign an agreement that they will not engage in any further political activities. The regime does not hesitate to re-imprison those who refuse to be intimidated into inaction.
	Currently, there are 18 members of parliament in prison; 38 have died there since the 1990 election. Conditions in Burmese prisons are dire.
	Last month, U Maung Ko died in Thyawaddy prison. He was the 82nd political prisoner known to have died since 1988. The situation is not improving; he was the fourth to die in the past four months. Many prisoners remain desperately ill and without due medical attention. A 72 year-old journalist, U Win Tin, a senior member of the NLD, has been in prison since 1989 and is suffering from serious health problems. The current charge against him is that he tried to send information on poor prison conditions to the United Nations.
	Others may die in prison due to the length of their sentences. Thet Win Aung has been in Kale prison since 1998. He has a 60-year prison sentence, yet he appears to be innocent of any crime. There are 26 other prisoners whom the regime has labelled as subversives. They are set to remain in prison indefinitely, despite the fact that their sentences were completed years ago. The best known is student leader Min Ko Naing, who has been kept in solitary confinement since 1989. His sentence expired in 1999, yet still he remains in prison. In September last year, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention made public its opinion that he was being detained illegally.
	In February, a 75 year-old professor, Dr Salai Tun Than, was given a seven-year prison sentence for peacefully handing out letters in Rangoon calling for elections to be held within a year. This summer, a law student, Thet Naing Soe, staged a peaceful protest in front of Rangoon city hall. He was arrested and given a 14-year prison sentence for making speeches and displaying posters. Days later, another student, Khin Maung Win, who was arrested with him, was given a seven-year sentence. Will the Minister confirm that the Government continue to take every opportunity to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all those prisoners of conscience?
	Burma is one of the world's largest producers of heroin. It is a trade from which the Burmese regime profits and from which Britain suffers. A great deal of heroin ends up on British streets. The supply of dangerous drugs will continue so long as the rule of law is absent in Burma.
	In recent months, there has been an apparent decrease in the amount of opium cultivated in Burma, but this may be due to the fact that methamphetamines are replacing heroin. Unlike heroin, taking these pills does not carry the risk of HIV. Their production in Burma is astronomical. It is estimated that between 900 million and 1 billion methamphetamine tablets, worth £2 billion, will be shipped across the Thai border next year.
	I welcome the efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to establish a robust EU common position on Burma. In particular, trade with the SPDC is not to be encouraged. Exports from the EU to Burma have fallen from 150 million euros in 1996 to only 81 million last year. However, imports from Burma have increased in the EU more than fivefold over this period, with the UK as the chief offender. Can the Minister account for this trade, which is contrary to the EU position and which goes against the call for economic sanctions by Daw Suu Kyi and those working for democracy in Burma? We must continue to deprive resources to the regime, which is currently allocating more budgets to defence and the internal security apparatus.
	Last month, the Indian military attache to Burma supplied Burmese brigadier-general Tin Maung Oo with 30 truckloads of weapons and ammunition, including heavy artillery shells. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will request the Indian Government to stop supplying the SPDC with weapons.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Cox about what pressure the Government will bring to bear on the regime to take forward a dialogue with the democracy movement. India, Malaysia and Singapore have particular influence with the Burma regime. I also hope that the Government will work with other countries to enable international humanitarian aid and human rights organisations to visit different parts of Burma.
	The government in Burma are looking for increased international aid, foreign investment and a lifting of trade restrictions. These clearly cannot be granted at the moment. However, we hope that the international community can offer incentives with joint problem-solving initiatives, such as humanitarian co-operation on HIV/AIDS campaigns, without prematurely withdrawing effective sanction leverage. Clearly, any assistance for appropriate humanitarian aid projects must be properly monitored.
	Finally, I understand that the British embassy in Rangoon runs a small scholarship programme in Burma. What action are the Government taking to encourage Burmese students to attend universities in the UK?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for the opportunity that she has given us tonight for a serious, thought-provoking debate on the plight of the people of Burma and the Government's response to that plight. I wholeheartedly agree with much of what has been said tonight. The overall picture so movingly painted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is depressing and all too accurate.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, pointed out, the release of Aung San Suu Kyi from house arrest in May should have been the platform for national reconciliation, respect for human rights and a transition to democracy in Burma. Sadly, it has not. Instead, regime leader Than Shwe continues to refuse to allow substantive political progress. It now looks as if the nascent political process that has struggled to unfold in Burma over the past two years is running out of steam and may be on the point of collapse.
	The past two years have seen some very modest positive movement. This has included the release of the 400 or so prisoners referred to by noble Lords, the reopening of branch offices of the National League for Democracy and some relaxation of restrictions on Aung San Suu Kyi, who can now travel around Burma. These changes are welcome, but they do not go anywhere near far enough, nor do they mean that the military authorities are committed to national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy.
	While we welcome the release of the 400 prisoners, we remain gravely concerned about the plight of the 1,200 or so political prisoners who remain in detention, including MPs-elect from the 1990 elections in Burma. The noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Astor of Hever, referred to the appalling conditions in prison.
	Acting on behalf of the European Union, the British Ambassador in Rangoon met the Burmese Foreign Minister on 20th November to express concern over the fresh political detentions and arrests there and the continued detention of large numbers of political prisoners. He also raised our concern to the regime's No 3, Khin Nyunt, on 26th November. We will continue to press for the immediate release of all political prisoners. We are pleased that NLD offices are reopening, but we are under no illusions about the restrictions that remain on democratic groups. The National League for Democracy is not allowed to publish a newsletter and its officials are subjected to constant surveillance and harassment. We also welcome Aung San Suu Kyi being allowed to travel around Burma. Since May she has visited Mandalay, Mon, Karen and Shan States where she has been received by large crowds.
	Repression, violence and human rights abuses cover all corners of Burma, from the Muslim Rohinghyas in Rakhine State to the Christian and Buddhist groups in Karen, Karenni, Shan and other states. To Thet Naung Soe, the student mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, was sentenced to 14 years on 15th November for making a peaceful protest outside Rangoon City Hall.
	Credible reports detailing instances of rape by the armed forces, again movingly recorded by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the use of child soldiers and violence in the ethnic minority areas have been published by NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide. However, the regime has chosen to dismiss many of these reports as the work of insurgents or political opponents. As a Government we strongly disagree and have expressed our concerns repeatedly. We welcome the fact that the United Nations Third Committee passed a resolution on Burma earlier this month and condemned the ongoing systematic human rights violations there. My noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead, in his impressive contribution, acknowledged the importance of this latest UN resolution, as did the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
	Of particular concern were reports of torture, extra-judicial killings, rape by members of the armed forces, forced labour, the continued use of child soldiers, forced relocation, denial of freedoms of assembly, association, expression and movement, and discrimination on the basis of religious as well as ethnic background. The EU drafted and co-sponsored the United Nations resolution and we as a Government were very proud to play our part in that process.
	As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my honourable friend Mike O'Brien said in a public statement on 2lst November, the resolution is an accurate account of the Burmese regime's record.
	We have been talking about forced labour. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, forthrightly pointed out, the regime's record on forced labour remains stubbornly abysmal. The European Commission has suspended Burma's trading privileges in response to the use of forced labour. The UK has been a staunch supporter of the ILO's efforts to get the Burmese regime to address the problem. We have welcomed the appointment of an International Labour Organisation liaison officer in Burma.
	The European Union most recently voiced its ongoing concern in Geneva at the ILO on 20th November, the details of which are on the FCO website. The ILO's action on Burma is unique. It is the only time in the 83-year history of the organisation that such action against an individual country has taken place, representing the concern over forced labour in Burma.
	The political developments must also be set against a background of ever-worsening economic and humanitarian situations in Burma. The Burmese economy is in a mess. Corruption is endemic. Foreign investment has fallen to almost nothing. The few remaining established companies are leaving. Electricity shortages mean that many parts of the country are routinely without power.
	The former rice basket of Asia now struggles to feed itself. The regime spends under one per cent of GDP on health and education combined while over 40 per cent goes on the armed forces. It is an awful record of self-induced suffering for which Senior General Than Shwe and the other leaders must take full responsibility.
	The Department for International Development is working hard to help those suffering under the misrule of the regime. As we know, large parts of the country remain off-limits to the UN and to NGOs. Access is a major problem particularly to those internally displaced. We are pressing for freedom of access to all parts of Burma for the UN and NGOs.
	Noble Lords asked about current UK policy. The UK has been at the forefront of international action in pressing for urgent progress towards respect for human rights and the return of democracy to Burma. With our European colleagues we have a strong EU common position, acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that includes an arms embargo, a ban on defence links, a ban on high-level visits, a ban on non-humanitarian assistance, a ban on sales of items that can be used for internal repression and torture, and a visa ban and asset freeze on regime members.
	The UK does not encourage trade, investment or any tourism in Burma. We support the excellent work of the UN Special Envoy to Burma and his efforts to promote political change there. We are active in countries all around the world, including those mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to bring about the widest possible pressure on the Burmese authorities.
	My honourable friend Mike O'Brien confirmed our commitment to political change when he spoke on the telephone to Aung San Suu Kyi on 1st November. Senior General Than Shwe has it within his power to take substantive steps now to move towards a more prosperous, peaceful future for all the people of Burma. We call as a Government upon Senior General Than Shwe to exercise the necessary political will and leadership to break through the present stalemate.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, kindly gave me notice of some questions she wanted answered. She asked what pressure Her Majesty's Government have brought to bear on the regime to pursue dialogue. We have been at the forefront of a strong EU common position, including sanctions. We do not encourage trade, investment or tourism, and we have been active in the UN and other countries to bring pressure to bear on the regime.
	The noble Baroness asked whether Her Majesty's Government would raise with the regime human rights accusations. We regularly raise concerns over human rights with the regime and in the UN. The Foreign Office was putting our concerns again to the Burmese embassy only two days ago. Will we urge the ILO to keep investigating forced labour? Yes we will. Most recently, we did this on 21st November at the ILO meeting in Geneva. Will we press for access to all areas of Burma for NGOs and the UN to help deliver humanitarian aid? The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also raised that matter. The answer is yes, we do, and yes we will.
	Will we pursue further sanctions? I cannot at the moment add to the measures I have outlined, but we wish the regime to be under no illusion that Burma's links with the international community can and will get worse if its rulers do not urgently pursue a transition to civilian rule.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked whether we would request China, India, Pakistan and Singapore to stop selling weapons to Burma, as did the noble Lord, Lord Astor. As I said, we are in contact with those countries to try to bring about the widest possible pressure on the regime. I will take back to the Foreign Office the noble Baroness's concern on that aspect of weapons sales, which has been raised by other noble Lords. We are actively trying to persuade China and other countries to do more to promote change in Burma.
	My noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead asked about a strong European common policy of sanctions. I have outlined that, but I wish to say to him that maintaining and strengthening an EU common position is an area of policy on which the Government are extremely robust.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked movingly about the dreadful situation of rape in Shan state. He is absolutely right; there is credible evidence that this is a serious problem. The EU has pressed for many years for action in UN resolutions. We say that this issue must be addressed by a credible independent investigation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also talked about China and all the countries in South-East Asia, all of which have an important role to play. We are actively—bilaterally and multilaterally—bringing the widest possible pressure to bear. He also asked about help for the opposition, the National League for Democracy. As he knows, the regime makes such help very difficult. However, we support civil society in Burma, including the NLD, within the very tight restrictions set by the regime.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, talked about aid for internally displaced people in Burma. We give money to the UN and to NGOs to support those suffering from the regime's misrule. She also raised cross-border aid issues. The fact is that internally displaced people have difficulty accessing aid. We fund the ICRC and the UNHCR, but the existing cross-border programmes are not transparent or accountable. As she knows, the transparency and accountability of aid programmes is a very serious issue for DfID. It is therefore still a very difficult issue. I hope that she will be patient with me if I write to her on the other points that she raised.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, specifically mentioned the case of U Win Tin. U Win Tin is on the FCO priority list of prisoners of conscience around the world. The noble Lord also raised the issue of trade with Burma. As he will know, in 1997, the EC suspended Burma's trading privileges in response to the use of forced labour. He also raised the issue of drugs and the increase in the opium trade—an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised in a Written Question—and I shall reply to him in writing.
	The international community would be willing to support a genuine process of transition to civilian rule in Burma. However, the Burmese authorities should not underestimate the resolve of the democratic groups in Burma and the international community. Burma's standing in the eyes of the world can and will deteriorate further if promises from the Burmese authorities about pursuing a transition to civilian rule are not kept. We will not let up until Burma is irreversibly committed to lasting change.

Tax Law Rewrite Bills

A message was received from the Commons that they have appointed seven Members to join with a committee of this House as the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills.
	House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.